<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_11_2055226</id>
	<title>Microsoft Patents Sudo's Behavior</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257932280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Foofoobar writes <i>"Just when you thought all was safe on the crazy patent front, Microsoft has come out of the obvious patent closet to file <a href="http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7,617,530.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,617,530&amp;RS=PN/7,617,530">patent number 7617530</a>, which basically duplicates the functionality of 'sudo' which is found in all Linux systems. PJ over at groklaw has <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390">a wonderful writeup on the entire fiasco</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Foofoobar writes " Just when you thought all was safe on the crazy patent front , Microsoft has come out of the obvious patent closet to file patent number 7617530 , which basically duplicates the functionality of 'sudo ' which is found in all Linux systems .
PJ over at groklaw has a wonderful writeup on the entire fiasco .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foofoobar writes "Just when you thought all was safe on the crazy patent front, Microsoft has come out of the obvious patent closet to file patent number 7617530, which basically duplicates the functionality of 'sudo' which is found in all Linux systems.
PJ over at groklaw has a wonderful writeup on the entire fiasco.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067056</id>
	<title>Re:I have prior work</title>
	<author>whatajoke</author>
	<datestamp>1257076680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does this mean "priv" is exempt from this patent?</p></div><p>How much money can you spare for getting justice?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean " priv " is exempt from this patent ? How much money can you spare for getting justice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean "priv" is exempt from this patent?How much money can you spare for getting justice?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30071214</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1258032660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Ubuntu, whenever I try to mount a drive but don't have the necessary privilege, I am presented with a list of users who do have such privilege and I am prompted pick a particular user and to provide that user's password. Even if no such list were presented to the user, however, a system like gksudo still has to identify an account -- say, root -- that does have the right to perform the privileged operation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Ubuntu , whenever I try to mount a drive but do n't have the necessary privilege , I am presented with a list of users who do have such privilege and I am prompted pick a particular user and to provide that user 's password .
Even if no such list were presented to the user , however , a system like gksudo still has to identify an account -- say , root -- that does have the right to perform the privileged operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Ubuntu, whenever I try to mount a drive but don't have the necessary privilege, I am presented with a list of users who do have such privilege and I am prompted pick a particular user and to provide that user's password.
Even if no such list were presented to the user, however, a system like gksudo still has to identify an account -- say, root -- that does have the right to perform the privileged operation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066606</id>
	<title>Policy Kit!</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1257074280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/" title="freedesktop.org" rel="nofollow">http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/</a> [freedesktop.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/ [ freedesktop.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/ [freedesktop.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30072196</id>
	<title>Prior art + obvious and trivial = WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to present a user interface</p><p>This has prior art for some time now, the rest is obvious and trivial.</p><p>End of Discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that , when executed by a computing device , cause the computing device to present a user interfaceThis has prior art for some time now , the rest is obvious and trivial.End of Discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to present a user interfaceThis has prior art for some time now, the rest is obvious and trivial.End of Discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988</id>
	<title>claims</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1257071940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As usual, you need to look at the claims of the patent. For example these points dont really cover sudo:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1. One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task, the user interface comprising: information indicating the task and an entity that attempted the task; a selectable help graphic wherein responsive to receiving selection of the selectable help graphic, the computer-readable instructions further cause the computing device to present the information; identifiers, each of the identifiers identifying other accounts having a right to permit the task, wherein the identifiers presented are based on criteria comprising: frequency of use; association with the user; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights; one of the identifiers identifies a higher-rights account having a right to permit the task, wherein the one of the identifiers comprises: a graphic identifying the higher-rights accounts associated with the user; and a name of the higher-rights account; an authenticator region capable of receiving, from the user, an authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account having the right to permit the task, wherein: the authenticator comprises a password, and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field configured to receive the password.</p><p>2. One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform acts comprising: determining multiple accounts capable of permitting a task not permitted by an account of a current user wherein the determining is based on criteria comprising: frequency of use; association with the current user; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights; receiving indicators for the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; presenting a graphical user interface, the graphical user interface having: multiple account regions, each account region identifying one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; an authenticator region capable of receiving an authenticator for one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; receiving, through the graphical user interface, the authenticator for one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; and responsive to receiving the authenticator for one of the accounts capable of permitting the task, packaging, into a computer-readable package, the received authenticator and the account capable of permitting the task associated with the authenticator, the package effective to enable authentication of the account capable of permitting the task.</p><p>3. The media of claim 2, where the each account region comprises a name identifying one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task.</p><p>4. The media of claim 2, where the each account region comprises a graphic identifying one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task.</p><p>5. The media of claim 2, further comprising permitting the task.</p><p>6. The media of claim 2, further comprising authenticating the account capable of permitting the task and, responsive to authenticating the account capable of permitting the task, temporarily elevating rights of the current user to that of the account capable of permitting the task effective to permit the task.</p><p>7. The media of claim 2, wherein rights of the account of the current user are limited by controlled-access software.</p><p>8. The media of claim 7, wherein the task is prohibited by the controlled-access software prior to authentication of the account capable of permitting the task and wherein the controlled-access software refrains from prohibiting the task in response to authentication of the account capable of permitting the task.</p><p>9. One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform acts comprising: presenting a higher-rights account to a computer user currently logged on to a computer's operating system with a limited-rights account, the higher-rights account having a right to permit a task currently prohibited by the operating system based on the limited-rights account not having the right to permit the task, the higher-rights account presented with an identifier capable of identifying a name of the higher-rights account or a person associated with the higher-rights account, wherein the act of presenting the higher-rights account comprises presenting additional higher-rights accounts, each additional higher-rights account being presented with an additional identifier capable of identifying a name of the additional higher-rights account or a person associated with the additional higher-rights account and wherein the additional higher-rights accounts being presented are determined based on criteria comprising: indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights: frequency of use; and association with the current user; an authenticator region configured to receive an authenticator, the authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account wherein the authenticator received comprises a password that is the same authenticator used for the user's current limited-rights account and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field into which the user may type the password; authenticating the higher-rights account; and temporarily elevating the computer user's rights to that of the higher-rights account effective to permit the operating system to cease prohibiting the task.</p><p>10. The media of claim 9, wherein the act of presenting the higher-rights account comprises presenting a graphical user interface comprising the identifier and a data-entry field capable of receiving entry of the authenticator.</p><p>11. The media of claim 9, wherein the act of temporarily elevating the computer user's rights comprises elevating the computer user's rights only for so long as is needed to permit the operating system to cease prohibiting the task.</p><p>12. The media of claim 9, wherein the act of temporarily elevating the computer user's rights comprises returning the computer user's rights to those of the limited-rights account once the operating system ceases to prohibit the task.</p><p>13. The user interface of claim 1, wherein the identifiers presented include the identifier of the user's current account having limited rights.</p><p>14. The user interface of claim 1, wherein the authenticator received is the same as the authenticator used for the user's current limited-rights account.</p><p>15. The media of claim 2, further comprising authenticating the account with the same identifier and authenticator as used for the user's current account.</p></div><p>Remember that they all have to apply. This isn't exactly sudo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual , you need to look at the claims of the patent .
For example these points dont really cover sudo : 1 .
One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that , when executed by a computing device , cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user 's current account not having a right to permit the task , the user interface comprising : information indicating the task and an entity that attempted the task ; a selectable help graphic wherein responsive to receiving selection of the selectable help graphic , the computer-readable instructions further cause the computing device to present the information ; identifiers , each of the identifiers identifying other accounts having a right to permit the task , wherein the identifiers presented are based on criteria comprising : frequency of use ; association with the user ; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights ; one of the identifiers identifies a higher-rights account having a right to permit the task , wherein the one of the identifiers comprises : a graphic identifying the higher-rights accounts associated with the user ; and a name of the higher-rights account ; an authenticator region capable of receiving , from the user , an authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account having the right to permit the task , wherein : the authenticator comprises a password , and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field configured to receive the password.2 .
One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that , when executed by a computing device , cause the computing device to perform acts comprising : determining multiple accounts capable of permitting a task not permitted by an account of a current user wherein the determining is based on criteria comprising : frequency of use ; association with the current user ; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights ; receiving indicators for the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task ; presenting a graphical user interface , the graphical user interface having : multiple account regions , each account region identifying one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task ; an authenticator region capable of receiving an authenticator for one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task ; receiving , through the graphical user interface , the authenticator for one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task ; and responsive to receiving the authenticator for one of the accounts capable of permitting the task , packaging , into a computer-readable package , the received authenticator and the account capable of permitting the task associated with the authenticator , the package effective to enable authentication of the account capable of permitting the task.3 .
The media of claim 2 , where the each account region comprises a name identifying one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task.4 .
The media of claim 2 , where the each account region comprises a graphic identifying one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task.5 .
The media of claim 2 , further comprising permitting the task.6 .
The media of claim 2 , further comprising authenticating the account capable of permitting the task and , responsive to authenticating the account capable of permitting the task , temporarily elevating rights of the current user to that of the account capable of permitting the task effective to permit the task.7 .
The media of claim 2 , wherein rights of the account of the current user are limited by controlled-access software.8 .
The media of claim 7 , wherein the task is prohibited by the controlled-access software prior to authentication of the account capable of permitting the task and wherein the controlled-access software refrains from prohibiting the task in response to authentication of the account capable of permitting the task.9 .
One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that , when executed by a computing device , cause the computing device to perform acts comprising : presenting a higher-rights account to a computer user currently logged on to a computer 's operating system with a limited-rights account , the higher-rights account having a right to permit a task currently prohibited by the operating system based on the limited-rights account not having the right to permit the task , the higher-rights account presented with an identifier capable of identifying a name of the higher-rights account or a person associated with the higher-rights account , wherein the act of presenting the higher-rights account comprises presenting additional higher-rights accounts , each additional higher-rights account being presented with an additional identifier capable of identifying a name of the additional higher-rights account or a person associated with the additional higher-rights account and wherein the additional higher-rights accounts being presented are determined based on criteria comprising : indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights : frequency of use ; and association with the current user ; an authenticator region configured to receive an authenticator , the authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account wherein the authenticator received comprises a password that is the same authenticator used for the user 's current limited-rights account and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field into which the user may type the password ; authenticating the higher-rights account ; and temporarily elevating the computer user 's rights to that of the higher-rights account effective to permit the operating system to cease prohibiting the task.10 .
The media of claim 9 , wherein the act of presenting the higher-rights account comprises presenting a graphical user interface comprising the identifier and a data-entry field capable of receiving entry of the authenticator.11 .
The media of claim 9 , wherein the act of temporarily elevating the computer user 's rights comprises elevating the computer user 's rights only for so long as is needed to permit the operating system to cease prohibiting the task.12 .
The media of claim 9 , wherein the act of temporarily elevating the computer user 's rights comprises returning the computer user 's rights to those of the limited-rights account once the operating system ceases to prohibit the task.13 .
The user interface of claim 1 , wherein the identifiers presented include the identifier of the user 's current account having limited rights.14 .
The user interface of claim 1 , wherein the authenticator received is the same as the authenticator used for the user 's current limited-rights account.15 .
The media of claim 2 , further comprising authenticating the account with the same identifier and authenticator as used for the user 's current account.Remember that they all have to apply .
This is n't exactly sudo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual, you need to look at the claims of the patent.
For example these points dont really cover sudo:1.
One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task, the user interface comprising: information indicating the task and an entity that attempted the task; a selectable help graphic wherein responsive to receiving selection of the selectable help graphic, the computer-readable instructions further cause the computing device to present the information; identifiers, each of the identifiers identifying other accounts having a right to permit the task, wherein the identifiers presented are based on criteria comprising: frequency of use; association with the user; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights; one of the identifiers identifies a higher-rights account having a right to permit the task, wherein the one of the identifiers comprises: a graphic identifying the higher-rights accounts associated with the user; and a name of the higher-rights account; an authenticator region capable of receiving, from the user, an authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account having the right to permit the task, wherein: the authenticator comprises a password, and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field configured to receive the password.2.
One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform acts comprising: determining multiple accounts capable of permitting a task not permitted by an account of a current user wherein the determining is based on criteria comprising: frequency of use; association with the current user; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights; receiving indicators for the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; presenting a graphical user interface, the graphical user interface having: multiple account regions, each account region identifying one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; an authenticator region capable of receiving an authenticator for one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; receiving, through the graphical user interface, the authenticator for one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; and responsive to receiving the authenticator for one of the accounts capable of permitting the task, packaging, into a computer-readable package, the received authenticator and the account capable of permitting the task associated with the authenticator, the package effective to enable authentication of the account capable of permitting the task.3.
The media of claim 2, where the each account region comprises a name identifying one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task.4.
The media of claim 2, where the each account region comprises a graphic identifying one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task.5.
The media of claim 2, further comprising permitting the task.6.
The media of claim 2, further comprising authenticating the account capable of permitting the task and, responsive to authenticating the account capable of permitting the task, temporarily elevating rights of the current user to that of the account capable of permitting the task effective to permit the task.7.
The media of claim 2, wherein rights of the account of the current user are limited by controlled-access software.8.
The media of claim 7, wherein the task is prohibited by the controlled-access software prior to authentication of the account capable of permitting the task and wherein the controlled-access software refrains from prohibiting the task in response to authentication of the account capable of permitting the task.9.
One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform acts comprising: presenting a higher-rights account to a computer user currently logged on to a computer's operating system with a limited-rights account, the higher-rights account having a right to permit a task currently prohibited by the operating system based on the limited-rights account not having the right to permit the task, the higher-rights account presented with an identifier capable of identifying a name of the higher-rights account or a person associated with the higher-rights account, wherein the act of presenting the higher-rights account comprises presenting additional higher-rights accounts, each additional higher-rights account being presented with an additional identifier capable of identifying a name of the additional higher-rights account or a person associated with the additional higher-rights account and wherein the additional higher-rights accounts being presented are determined based on criteria comprising: indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights: frequency of use; and association with the current user; an authenticator region configured to receive an authenticator, the authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account wherein the authenticator received comprises a password that is the same authenticator used for the user's current limited-rights account and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field into which the user may type the password; authenticating the higher-rights account; and temporarily elevating the computer user's rights to that of the higher-rights account effective to permit the operating system to cease prohibiting the task.10.
The media of claim 9, wherein the act of presenting the higher-rights account comprises presenting a graphical user interface comprising the identifier and a data-entry field capable of receiving entry of the authenticator.11.
The media of claim 9, wherein the act of temporarily elevating the computer user's rights comprises elevating the computer user's rights only for so long as is needed to permit the operating system to cease prohibiting the task.12.
The media of claim 9, wherein the act of temporarily elevating the computer user's rights comprises returning the computer user's rights to those of the limited-rights account once the operating system ceases to prohibit the task.13.
The user interface of claim 1, wherein the identifiers presented include the identifier of the user's current account having limited rights.14.
The user interface of claim 1, wherein the authenticator received is the same as the authenticator used for the user's current limited-rights account.15.
The media of claim 2, further comprising authenticating the account with the same identifier and authenticator as used for the user's current account.Remember that they all have to apply.
This isn't exactly sudo.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066288</id>
	<title>Link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://xkcd.com/149/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/149/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/149/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068828</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are in violation of my patent for posting a condemnation of software patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are in violation of my patent for posting a condemnation of software patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are in violation of my patent for posting a condemnation of software patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068224</id>
	<title>Not really needed anyway.</title>
	<author>TravisHein</author>
	<datestamp>1257084960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But doesn't the numerous back doors and severe drive by invokable kernel security flaws already allow arbitrary privileged execution.?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But does n't the numerous back doors and severe drive by invokable kernel security flaws already allow arbitrary privileged execution .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But doesn't the numerous back doors and severe drive by invokable kernel security flaws already allow arbitrary privileged execution.
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066534</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257073980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if you change/drop any of the elements of this patent, is it not covered?  Like if you don't have identifiers indicated other accounts having the right to permit the task, but you have the rest of it, can you say, "Sorry Microsoft, but your patent doesn't cover my implimentation."?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you change/drop any of the elements of this patent , is it not covered ?
Like if you do n't have identifiers indicated other accounts having the right to permit the task , but you have the rest of it , can you say , " Sorry Microsoft , but your patent does n't cover my implimentation .
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you change/drop any of the elements of this patent, is it not covered?
Like if you don't have identifiers indicated other accounts having the right to permit the task, but you have the rest of it, can you say, "Sorry Microsoft, but your patent doesn't cover my implimentation.
"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067492</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>Clopnixus</author>
	<datestamp>1257079440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, they are all patently stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , they are all patently stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, they are all patently stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066520</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>Shagg</author>
	<datestamp>1257073920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you used any recent versions of Linux (within the last several years at least)?  Login to the GUI as a regular user, click on something that needs root permissions, you get a popup box warning you and also requesting the root password.  It's basically the exact same thing as this patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you used any recent versions of Linux ( within the last several years at least ) ?
Login to the GUI as a regular user , click on something that needs root permissions , you get a popup box warning you and also requesting the root password .
It 's basically the exact same thing as this patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you used any recent versions of Linux (within the last several years at least)?
Login to the GUI as a regular user, click on something that needs root permissions, you get a popup box warning you and also requesting the root password.
It's basically the exact same thing as this patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066226</id>
	<title>They didn't get it on their first try...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1257072780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS:  Grant me this patent.</p><p>USPTO:  No!</p><p>MS:  Sudo grant me this patent.</p><p>USPTO:  Okay...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS : Grant me this patent.USPTO : No ! MS : Sudo grant me this patent.USPTO : Okay.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS:  Grant me this patent.USPTO:  No!MS:  Sudo grant me this patent.USPTO:  Okay...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066544</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1257074040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation, and disagrees with you.</p><p>Funny how you also don't provide the analysis into common english.</p><p>It's sudo with a gui, in other words: what macos does when you try to modify files in the system folder, or gksudo in linux.</p></div><p>It's sudo with a GUI, but it specifies features of the GUI that I've not seen on Linux (not that I'm much of a Linux guru). Yes, when I try to do something beyond my privs I might get a dialog offering to sudo, mut the Microsoft patent also seems to say that the dialog will actually offer the names of logins that do have the required privs, based on frequency of use and whether they're associated with the current user. <em>that's</em> something I've not seen. Not something I especially want to see either, but it suggests something more novel than a simple sudo GUI,</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation , and disagrees with you.Funny how you also do n't provide the analysis into common english.It 's sudo with a gui , in other words : what macos does when you try to modify files in the system folder , or gksudo in linux.It 's sudo with a GUI , but it specifies features of the GUI that I 've not seen on Linux ( not that I 'm much of a Linux guru ) .
Yes , when I try to do something beyond my privs I might get a dialog offering to sudo , mut the Microsoft patent also seems to say that the dialog will actually offer the names of logins that do have the required privs , based on frequency of use and whether they 're associated with the current user .
that 's something I 've not seen .
Not something I especially want to see either , but it suggests something more novel than a simple sudo GUI ,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation, and disagrees with you.Funny how you also don't provide the analysis into common english.It's sudo with a gui, in other words: what macos does when you try to modify files in the system folder, or gksudo in linux.It's sudo with a GUI, but it specifies features of the GUI that I've not seen on Linux (not that I'm much of a Linux guru).
Yes, when I try to do something beyond my privs I might get a dialog offering to sudo, mut the Microsoft patent also seems to say that the dialog will actually offer the names of logins that do have the required privs, based on frequency of use and whether they're associated with the current user.
that's something I've not seen.
Not something I especially want to see either, but it suggests something more novel than a simple sudo GUI,
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066980</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the alarmist headlines already</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1257076320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>At most, it has applied for a patent who's claims could be twisted to make it look like they're trying to patent sudo.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And this doesn't bother you? Obviously you haven't hanging been around many IP lawyers lately...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At most , it has applied for a patent who 's claims could be twisted to make it look like they 're trying to patent sudo .
      And this does n't bother you ?
Obviously you have n't hanging been around many IP lawyers lately.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At most, it has applied for a patent who's claims could be twisted to make it look like they're trying to patent sudo.
      And this doesn't bother you?
Obviously you haven't hanging been around many IP lawyers lately...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069002</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's US patent system's fault, not Microsoft. </i>
<p>
You dirty stinking whining little apologist.
</p><p>
Your slippery, evasive, quibbling, blame-deflecting behaviour is indicative of everything that's wrong with computing today.
</p><p>
Grow a pair and allow responsibility to be accepted where it is due, you coward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's US patent system 's fault , not Microsoft .
You dirty stinking whining little apologist .
Your slippery , evasive , quibbling , blame-deflecting behaviour is indicative of everything that 's wrong with computing today .
Grow a pair and allow responsibility to be accepted where it is due , you coward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's US patent system's fault, not Microsoft.
You dirty stinking whining little apologist.
Your slippery, evasive, quibbling, blame-deflecting behaviour is indicative of everything that's wrong with computing today.
Grow a pair and allow responsibility to be accepted where it is due, you coward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066714</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1257074880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you point out the text in the patent claim that makes a distinction between a gksudo-type program that is executed on demand by an application requiring greater privilege and a UAC-type module that is executed automatically by the operating system? It seems to me the patent would cover gksudo when invoked by an application that knows it doesn't have the necessary rights to perform an operation, but perhaps there's something I've missed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you point out the text in the patent claim that makes a distinction between a gksudo-type program that is executed on demand by an application requiring greater privilege and a UAC-type module that is executed automatically by the operating system ?
It seems to me the patent would cover gksudo when invoked by an application that knows it does n't have the necessary rights to perform an operation , but perhaps there 's something I 've missed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you point out the text in the patent claim that makes a distinction between a gksudo-type program that is executed on demand by an application requiring greater privilege and a UAC-type module that is executed automatically by the operating system?
It seems to me the patent would cover gksudo when invoked by an application that knows it doesn't have the necessary rights to perform an operation, but perhaps there's something I've missed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068258</id>
	<title>Other References for Dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Andy Rathbone, "Windows XP for Dummies", 2001, Wiley Publishing Inc., pp. 62-64, 66, 106-107, 128 and 314. cited by examiner<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Really?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Andy Rathbone , " Windows XP for Dummies " , 2001 , Wiley Publishing Inc. , pp .
62-64 , 66 , 106-107 , 128 and 314. cited by examiner .
" ... Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Andy Rathbone, "Windows XP for Dummies", 2001, Wiley Publishing Inc., pp.
62-64, 66, 106-107, 128 and 314. cited by examiner .
" ... Really?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067306</id>
	<title>Re:I have prior work</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1257078360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case I'm wrong -</p><p><a href="http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:SvycTU5QRQcJ:www.docstoc.com/docs/13337716/priv+history+\%22unix+priv\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.155.132">http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:SvycTU5QRQcJ:www.docstoc.com/docs/13337716/priv+history+\%22unix+priv\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.155.132]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case I 'm wrong -http : //74.125.155.132/search ? q = cache : SvycTU5QRQcJ : www.docstoc.com/docs/13337716/priv + history + \ % 22unix + priv \ % 22&amp;cd = 1&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.155.132 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case I'm wrong -http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:SvycTU5QRQcJ:www.docstoc.com/docs/13337716/priv+history+\%22unix+priv\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.155.132]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066130</id>
	<title>$andwich</title>
	<author>bunhed</author>
	<datestamp>1257072480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$&gt; sudo bill make me a sandwich</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ &gt; sudo bill make me a sandwich</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$&gt; sudo bill make me a sandwich</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067864</id>
	<title>Re:I have prior work</title>
	<author>bigbird</author>
	<datestamp>1257081900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, with a user id &gt; 500,000? Where were you in the 1990's?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , with a user id &gt; 500,000 ?
Where were you in the 1990 's ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, with a user id &gt; 500,000?
Where were you in the 1990's?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066776</id>
	<title>Re:They didn't get it on their first try...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1257075300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, since that got modded up, I feel guilty.  I totally stole it.</p><p>For bonus points, I stole it from what must be the Obligatory xkcd:</p><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/149/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/149/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , since that got modded up , I feel guilty .
I totally stole it.For bonus points , I stole it from what must be the Obligatory xkcd : http : //xkcd.com/149/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, since that got modded up, I feel guilty.
I totally stole it.For bonus points, I stole it from what must be the Obligatory xkcd:http://xkcd.com/149/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066762</id>
	<title>I know how we will get them!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we will trap them in their own greed:</p><p>Just pitch the idea to the government, to put huge fines invalidating stupid patents like these. Like 10\% of the business's sales volume. Then tell them, how to easily make money, by invalidating such a pointless patent.<br>Now just let the greed work its way...</p><p>With huge holes in the goverment budget, and them making more money this way, then the companies could ever bribe them with, this could actually work.</p><p>Now all we need is someone hot who can meet for a dinner with some politicians.<br>Let's all put some money in a anonymous account, and pay a escort girl to turn their heads, until they obey like dogs. ^^</p><p>Damn, that could actually work! Hormones are always a safe attack vector. And since you can buy them for money...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we will trap them in their own greed : Just pitch the idea to the government , to put huge fines invalidating stupid patents like these .
Like 10 \ % of the business 's sales volume .
Then tell them , how to easily make money , by invalidating such a pointless patent.Now just let the greed work its way...With huge holes in the goverment budget , and them making more money this way , then the companies could ever bribe them with , this could actually work.Now all we need is someone hot who can meet for a dinner with some politicians.Let 's all put some money in a anonymous account , and pay a escort girl to turn their heads , until they obey like dogs .
^ ^ Damn , that could actually work !
Hormones are always a safe attack vector .
And since you can buy them for money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we will trap them in their own greed:Just pitch the idea to the government, to put huge fines invalidating stupid patents like these.
Like 10\% of the business's sales volume.
Then tell them, how to easily make money, by invalidating such a pointless patent.Now just let the greed work its way...With huge holes in the goverment budget, and them making more money this way, then the companies could ever bribe them with, this could actually work.Now all we need is someone hot who can meet for a dinner with some politicians.Let's all put some money in a anonymous account, and pay a escort girl to turn their heads, until they obey like dogs.
^^Damn, that could actually work!
Hormones are always a safe attack vector.
And since you can buy them for money...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067048</id>
	<title>Not sudo.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the first claim. It's far more specific than what sudo does. Sudo is just about elevating rights via a command, this is much more specific.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the first claim .
It 's far more specific than what sudo does .
Sudo is just about elevating rights via a command , this is much more specific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the first claim.
It's far more specific than what sudo does.
Sudo is just about elevating rights via a command, this is much more specific.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066932</id>
	<title>Re:So what, they can have it.</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1257076080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>su -c<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin/foo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>su -c /bin/foo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>su -c /bin/foo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070032</id>
	<title>Sudo patent?</title>
	<author>childoftv</author>
	<datestamp>1258056720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$ patent sudo<br>
-bash: patent: command not found<br>
$ sudo patent sudo<br>
password:<br>
$</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ patent sudo -bash : patent : command not found $ sudo patent sudo password : $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$ patent sudo
-bash: patent: command not found
$ sudo patent sudo
password:
$</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066178</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1257072660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Groklaw article is saying that Microsoft is filing this patent to collect a toll from Linux community for sudo. But there is no case, since if the patent would collide with sudo it would itself be invalid, because sudo has been around since like 1980.</p><p>Again the claims do not fully overlap with sudo (or gui's that use it). Every claim has to collide for there to be a case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Groklaw article is saying that Microsoft is filing this patent to collect a toll from Linux community for sudo .
But there is no case , since if the patent would collide with sudo it would itself be invalid , because sudo has been around since like 1980.Again the claims do not fully overlap with sudo ( or gui 's that use it ) .
Every claim has to collide for there to be a case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Groklaw article is saying that Microsoft is filing this patent to collect a toll from Linux community for sudo.
But there is no case, since if the patent would collide with sudo it would itself be invalid, because sudo has been around since like 1980.Again the claims do not fully overlap with sudo (or gui's that use it).
Every claim has to collide for there to be a case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066062</id>
	<title>Wah! Wah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We, the stupid open source hippies, are too dumb to patent something.<br>
WWWAAAAHHHHH!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We , the stupid open source hippies , are too dumb to patent something .
WWWAAAAHHHHH ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We, the stupid open source hippies, are too dumb to patent something.
WWWAAAAHHHHH!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067564</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the alarmist headlines already</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1257079980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An application for a patent is an intent to have a patent and is thus morally equivalent (in terms of Microsoft, not the USPTO) to having the patent. A failed bank robbery is still a crime - the intent to rob a bank was there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An application for a patent is an intent to have a patent and is thus morally equivalent ( in terms of Microsoft , not the USPTO ) to having the patent .
A failed bank robbery is still a crime - the intent to rob a bank was there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An application for a patent is an intent to have a patent and is thus morally equivalent (in terms of Microsoft, not the USPTO) to having the patent.
A failed bank robbery is still a crime - the intent to rob a bank was there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30074178</id>
	<title>Re:Liunx schminux</title>
	<author>k8to</author>
	<datestamp>1258047900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sudo predates linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sudo predates linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sudo predates linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067642</id>
	<title>Groklaw is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257080520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The claims presented on their web page do not conflict with sudo.</p><p>sudo works in a very different way: sudo is about the user saying "i need to be a different user so I can run command Y"</p><p>This feature is about the operating system saying "user X, in order to do Y, you need more privilege."</p><p>The two concepts are quite different.</p><p>Maybe Groklaw folks should use Vista/Windows7, as well as Unix, and try to understand the difference(s) between the roles of the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The claims presented on their web page do not conflict with sudo.sudo works in a very different way : sudo is about the user saying " i need to be a different user so I can run command Y " This feature is about the operating system saying " user X , in order to do Y , you need more privilege .
" The two concepts are quite different.Maybe Groklaw folks should use Vista/Windows7 , as well as Unix , and try to understand the difference ( s ) between the roles of the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The claims presented on their web page do not conflict with sudo.sudo works in a very different way: sudo is about the user saying "i need to be a different user so I can run command Y"This feature is about the operating system saying "user X, in order to do Y, you need more privilege.
"The two concepts are quite different.Maybe Groklaw folks should use Vista/Windows7, as well as Unix, and try to understand the difference(s) between the roles of the two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30075814</id>
	<title>Close but no sudo</title>
	<author>Arimus</author>
	<datestamp>1258052700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sudo = Program to run when YOU know you need more privileges.<br>MS thingy = Program that runs when it decides you need more privileges.</p><p>MS thingy = receipe for dumb users to give permission when they shouldn't.</p><p>sudo = way to stop dumb users (just don't add them to the sudoers file).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sudo = Program to run when YOU know you need more privileges.MS thingy = Program that runs when it decides you need more privileges.MS thingy = receipe for dumb users to give permission when they should n't.sudo = way to stop dumb users ( just do n't add them to the sudoers file ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sudo = Program to run when YOU know you need more privileges.MS thingy = Program that runs when it decides you need more privileges.MS thingy = receipe for dumb users to give permission when they shouldn't.sudo = way to stop dumb users (just don't add them to the sudoers file).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067460</id>
	<title>Another reason (on top of the many) to not use M$</title>
	<author>Trizicus</author>
	<datestamp>1257079200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep another one of those reasons to move to Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep another one of those reasons to move to Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep another one of those reasons to move to Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's US patent system's fault, not Microsoft. They have to file these to cover their own ass. And actually I haven't ever seen MS patent trolling, they've even gave their patents to organizations which purpose is to keep them open. Even the TomTom vs. Microsoft case was because TomTom attacked MS first and they had to counter.</p><p>Patent system is the one to blame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's US patent system 's fault , not Microsoft .
They have to file these to cover their own ass .
And actually I have n't ever seen MS patent trolling , they 've even gave their patents to organizations which purpose is to keep them open .
Even the TomTom vs. Microsoft case was because TomTom attacked MS first and they had to counter.Patent system is the one to blame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's US patent system's fault, not Microsoft.
They have to file these to cover their own ass.
And actually I haven't ever seen MS patent trolling, they've even gave their patents to organizations which purpose is to keep them open.
Even the TomTom vs. Microsoft case was because TomTom attacked MS first and they had to counter.Patent system is the one to blame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067336</id>
	<title>Dear Newbs, su came before sudo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to claims something copies 'sudo' with 'Linux' please realize that sudo copies su which was around long before Linux.</p><p>sudo has more features than su, yes.  Everything that 'copies' sudo has more features as well.</p><p>Although the patent in this case does not copy sudo, or gksudo or OSX.  The patent covers something that detects an authorization (NOT AUTHENTICATION) failure and gives an opportunity to elevate privileges and continue rather than denying the request.</p><p>su, sudo, gksudo and the OS X applet all require knowledge in advance that elevated privileges are required.</p><p>Do I think the difference is worth patenting? No, its the next logical step.  However, if you're going to rant and rave about what Microsoft is patenting, at least realize they aren't patenting a clone of something you've been using for years.</p><p>You only make the rest of the OSS world look stupid to the powers that be when you rant and rave and you are completely ignorant of whats being done.  We lose credibility and get written off as raving lunes when you respond like this.  So please, shut the hell up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to claims something copies 'sudo ' with 'Linux ' please realize that sudo copies su which was around long before Linux.sudo has more features than su , yes .
Everything that 'copies ' sudo has more features as well.Although the patent in this case does not copy sudo , or gksudo or OSX .
The patent covers something that detects an authorization ( NOT AUTHENTICATION ) failure and gives an opportunity to elevate privileges and continue rather than denying the request.su , sudo , gksudo and the OS X applet all require knowledge in advance that elevated privileges are required.Do I think the difference is worth patenting ?
No , its the next logical step .
However , if you 're going to rant and rave about what Microsoft is patenting , at least realize they are n't patenting a clone of something you 've been using for years.You only make the rest of the OSS world look stupid to the powers that be when you rant and rave and you are completely ignorant of whats being done .
We lose credibility and get written off as raving lunes when you respond like this .
So please , shut the hell up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to claims something copies 'sudo' with 'Linux' please realize that sudo copies su which was around long before Linux.sudo has more features than su, yes.
Everything that 'copies' sudo has more features as well.Although the patent in this case does not copy sudo, or gksudo or OSX.
The patent covers something that detects an authorization (NOT AUTHENTICATION) failure and gives an opportunity to elevate privileges and continue rather than denying the request.su, sudo, gksudo and the OS X applet all require knowledge in advance that elevated privileges are required.Do I think the difference is worth patenting?
No, its the next logical step.
However, if you're going to rant and rave about what Microsoft is patenting, at least realize they aren't patenting a clone of something you've been using for years.You only make the rest of the OSS world look stupid to the powers that be when you rant and rave and you are completely ignorant of whats being done.
We lose credibility and get written off as raving lunes when you respond like this.
So please, shut the hell up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067790</id>
	<title>Re:Liunx schminux</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1257081420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You are thinking of just the root account, or maybe "su" which is really "login as root".</i></p><p>Aaargh.  su(1) is certainly not "login as root".</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>NAME<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; su -- substitute user identity<br>
&nbsp; <br>SYNOPSIS<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; su [-] [-flms] [-c class] [login [args]]<br>
&nbsp; <br>DESCRIPTION<br>
&nbsp; The su utility requests appropriate user credentials via PAM and switches<br>
&nbsp; to that user ID (the default user is the superuser). A shell is then<br>
&nbsp; executed.</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are thinking of just the root account , or maybe " su " which is really " login as root " .Aaargh .
su ( 1 ) is certainly not " login as root " .
NAME     su -- substitute user identity   SYNOPSIS     su [ - ] [ -flms ] [ -c class ] [ login [ args ] ]   DESCRIPTION   The su utility requests appropriate user credentials via PAM and switches   to that user ID ( the default user is the superuser ) .
A shell is then   executed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are thinking of just the root account, or maybe "su" which is really "login as root".Aaargh.
su(1) is certainly not "login as root".
NAME
    su -- substitute user identity
  SYNOPSIS
    su [-] [-flms] [-c class] [login [args]]
  DESCRIPTION
  The su utility requests appropriate user credentials via PAM and switches
  to that user ID (the default user is the superuser).
A shell is then
  executed. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066332</id>
	<title>Just curious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patent troll has been a business model for some time now, just wondering if Patent Troll was also a job title or at least the name of a department? Are they kept in the basement or is Microsoft upscale enough to build them their own bridge to live under?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patent troll has been a business model for some time now , just wondering if Patent Troll was also a job title or at least the name of a department ?
Are they kept in the basement or is Microsoft upscale enough to build them their own bridge to live under ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patent troll has been a business model for some time now, just wondering if Patent Troll was also a job title or at least the name of a department?
Are they kept in the basement or is Microsoft upscale enough to build them their own bridge to live under?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066102</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I condemn all software patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I condemn all software patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I condemn all software patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068696</id>
	<title>Re:This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>kbielefe</author>
	<datestamp>1257089340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is this different from the Linux sudo model</p></div><p>That's actually a good question.  I can imagine Microsoft engineers asking the same question and concluding that people think sudo is a good thing, so automatic user friendly sudo everywhere is by extension a good thing.  That belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes sudo good.</p><p>The answer is not in sudo's capabilities, but in how sudo is typically used as <em>one tool</em> in the context of an overall security policy.  There are a select few applications that automatically prompt for privilege elevation, and those applications are carefully monitored, do the least amount possible with increased privileges, and the application developers <em>know</em> those apps will be run with administrator privileges and design and are held accountable for security accordingly.</p><p>There are other applications that are much easier to run with root privileges.  Take xsane (scanning software) as an example.  It doesn't automatically prompt for privilege elevation.  It will give you a permission denied message.  If you run it with sudo, it pops up a big scary warning saying proceed at your own risk.  That's because in order to scan files, you need read and write access to one device, not god-like power over the entire system, and if you ask on the forums, you will be told precisely how to give xsane just the permissions it needs, and no more.  If one were to be implemented, people would want the Linux version of the software in this Microsoft patent to do the same thing, not prompt for a password that opens up a ton more potential security holes.</p><p>Knowing when to use something less powerful instead of sudo is an important, pervasive, and ongoing conscious part of the "Linux sudo model."  <em>That's</em> how it's different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different from the Linux sudo modelThat 's actually a good question .
I can imagine Microsoft engineers asking the same question and concluding that people think sudo is a good thing , so automatic user friendly sudo everywhere is by extension a good thing .
That belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes sudo good.The answer is not in sudo 's capabilities , but in how sudo is typically used as one tool in the context of an overall security policy .
There are a select few applications that automatically prompt for privilege elevation , and those applications are carefully monitored , do the least amount possible with increased privileges , and the application developers know those apps will be run with administrator privileges and design and are held accountable for security accordingly.There are other applications that are much easier to run with root privileges .
Take xsane ( scanning software ) as an example .
It does n't automatically prompt for privilege elevation .
It will give you a permission denied message .
If you run it with sudo , it pops up a big scary warning saying proceed at your own risk .
That 's because in order to scan files , you need read and write access to one device , not god-like power over the entire system , and if you ask on the forums , you will be told precisely how to give xsane just the permissions it needs , and no more .
If one were to be implemented , people would want the Linux version of the software in this Microsoft patent to do the same thing , not prompt for a password that opens up a ton more potential security holes.Knowing when to use something less powerful instead of sudo is an important , pervasive , and ongoing conscious part of the " Linux sudo model .
" That 's how it 's different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this different from the Linux sudo modelThat's actually a good question.
I can imagine Microsoft engineers asking the same question and concluding that people think sudo is a good thing, so automatic user friendly sudo everywhere is by extension a good thing.
That belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes sudo good.The answer is not in sudo's capabilities, but in how sudo is typically used as one tool in the context of an overall security policy.
There are a select few applications that automatically prompt for privilege elevation, and those applications are carefully monitored, do the least amount possible with increased privileges, and the application developers know those apps will be run with administrator privileges and design and are held accountable for security accordingly.There are other applications that are much easier to run with root privileges.
Take xsane (scanning software) as an example.
It doesn't automatically prompt for privilege elevation.
It will give you a permission denied message.
If you run it with sudo, it pops up a big scary warning saying proceed at your own risk.
That's because in order to scan files, you need read and write access to one device, not god-like power over the entire system, and if you ask on the forums, you will be told precisely how to give xsane just the permissions it needs, and no more.
If one were to be implemented, people would want the Linux version of the software in this Microsoft patent to do the same thing, not prompt for a password that opens up a ton more potential security holes.Knowing when to use something less powerful instead of sudo is an important, pervasive, and ongoing conscious part of the "Linux sudo model.
"  That's how it's different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066674</id>
	<title>Moot Point</title>
	<author>kwiqsilver</author>
	<datestamp>1257074640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This patent is a moot point anyway, because it falls under my patent for a system where a user authenticates his identity by means of a unique user identifier and a secret password, before the system allows him access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This patent is a moot point anyway , because it falls under my patent for a system where a user authenticates his identity by means of a unique user identifier and a secret password , before the system allows him access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This patent is a moot point anyway, because it falls under my patent for a system where a user authenticates his identity by means of a unique user identifier and a secret password, before the system allows him access.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30076194</id>
	<title>Old News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258053900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds awfully familiar. <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/04/08/20/221230/Microsoft-Patents-sudo" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Oh yeah!</a> [slashdot.org] They already <a href="http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=6,775,781.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,617,530&amp;RS=PN/6,775,781" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">patented this</a> [uspto.gov] back in 2004.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds awfully familiar .
Oh yeah !
[ slashdot.org ] They already patented this [ uspto.gov ] back in 2004 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds awfully familiar.
Oh yeah!
[slashdot.org] They already patented this [uspto.gov] back in 2004.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066342</id>
	<title>So what, they can have it.</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1257073260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>sudo is shit. What is the point anyway ? Either you've got root, or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.<blockquote><div><p>sudo allows a permitted user to execute a command as the superuser or
       another user, as specified in the sudoers file.  The real and effective
       uid and gid are set to match those of the target user as specified in
       the passwd file and the group vector is initialized based on the group
       file (unless the -P option was specified).  If the invoking user is
       root or if the target user is the same as the invoking user, no pass-
       word is required.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>sudo is shit .
What is the point anyway ?
Either you 've got root , or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.sudo allows a permitted user to execute a command as the superuser or another user , as specified in the sudoers file .
The real and effective uid and gid are set to match those of the target user as specified in the passwd file and the group vector is initialized based on the group file ( unless the -P option was specified ) .
If the invoking user is root or if the target user is the same as the invoking user , no pass- word is required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sudo is shit.
What is the point anyway ?
Either you've got root, or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.sudo allows a permitted user to execute a command as the superuser or
       another user, as specified in the sudoers file.
The real and effective
       uid and gid are set to match those of the target user as specified in
       the passwd file and the group vector is initialized based on the group
       file (unless the -P option was specified).
If the invoking user is
       root or if the target user is the same as the invoking user, no pass-
       word is required.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070006</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258056240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This patent covers material which has been present in linux and macos X and is part of the evolving function of sudo. Fini.</i></p><p>It may be where sudo is evolving to but does sudo list the accounts that have the needed permission?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This patent covers material which has been present in linux and macos X and is part of the evolving function of sudo .
Fini.It may be where sudo is evolving to but does sudo list the accounts that have the needed permission ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This patent covers material which has been present in linux and macos X and is part of the evolving function of sudo.
Fini.It may be where sudo is evolving to but does sudo list the accounts that have the needed permission?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070922</id>
	<title>sudo is safe from MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258027320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should read manuals and you will find out, that sudo is the derivative of su, and su is not 'super user', but 'switch user', so that it allows you to act or perform actions as any other user in the system, if you know the password. Only when not specifying -u option it defaults to 'root' user.<br>Microsoft's patent is to elevaiting privilegies, that is only a part of sudo or su.</p><p>--<br>disik<br>denis1482@yandex.ru</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should read manuals and you will find out , that sudo is the derivative of su , and su is not 'super user ' , but 'switch user ' , so that it allows you to act or perform actions as any other user in the system , if you know the password .
Only when not specifying -u option it defaults to 'root ' user.Microsoft 's patent is to elevaiting privilegies , that is only a part of sudo or su.--disikdenis1482 @ yandex.ru</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should read manuals and you will find out, that sudo is the derivative of su, and su is not 'super user', but 'switch user', so that it allows you to act or perform actions as any other user in the system, if you know the password.
Only when not specifying -u option it defaults to 'root' user.Microsoft's patent is to elevaiting privilegies, that is only a part of sudo or su.--disikdenis1482@yandex.ru</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30073146</id>
	<title>Didn't They Already Patent This?</title>
	<author>SenFo</author>
	<datestamp>1258043400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to say that this is a duplicate story, but am I the only one that remembers <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/20/221230" title="slashdot.org">this Slashdot post</a> [slashdot.org] from years ago? It's obviously a new patent, but is it not essentially the same patent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to say that this is a duplicate story , but am I the only one that remembers this Slashdot post [ slashdot.org ] from years ago ?
It 's obviously a new patent , but is it not essentially the same patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to say that this is a duplicate story, but am I the only one that remembers this Slashdot post [slashdot.org] from years ago?
It's obviously a new patent, but is it not essentially the same patent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068388</id>
	<title>Re:POLICY KIT!</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1257086400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a post above:</p><p>This patent was filed more than four years ago, in April of 2005. This filing predates Red Hat's announcement of PolicyKit by about a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a post above : This patent was filed more than four years ago , in April of 2005 .
This filing predates Red Hat 's announcement of PolicyKit by about a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a post above:This patent was filed more than four years ago, in April of 2005.
This filing predates Red Hat's announcement of PolicyKit by about a year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067436</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1257079020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but the patent does not describe or cover the access control system for users. It merely references the user account permissions as a base/reason for escalation.</p><p>The patent is about the interface used to escalate privileges in order to perform a task. The method of how it was determined that the user did not have access to the said task is irrelevant and is not covered by the patent.</p><p>In fact, the patent describes what kdesu and similar tools (using sudo) already do - i.e. something (some underlying system, script, program, etc. - it doesn't matter what/how) determines there is a need for privilege escalation for a specific task, and presents the user interface in order to do so. This patent covers that use interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but the patent does not describe or cover the access control system for users .
It merely references the user account permissions as a base/reason for escalation.The patent is about the interface used to escalate privileges in order to perform a task .
The method of how it was determined that the user did not have access to the said task is irrelevant and is not covered by the patent.In fact , the patent describes what kdesu and similar tools ( using sudo ) already do - i.e .
something ( some underlying system , script , program , etc .
- it does n't matter what/how ) determines there is a need for privilege escalation for a specific task , and presents the user interface in order to do so .
This patent covers that use interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but the patent does not describe or cover the access control system for users.
It merely references the user account permissions as a base/reason for escalation.The patent is about the interface used to escalate privileges in order to perform a task.
The method of how it was determined that the user did not have access to the said task is irrelevant and is not covered by the patent.In fact, the patent describes what kdesu and similar tools (using sudo) already do - i.e.
something (some underlying system, script, program, etc.
- it doesn't matter what/how) determines there is a need for privilege escalation for a specific task, and presents the user interface in order to do so.
This patent covers that use interface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067846</id>
	<title>sudo sux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>heh heh heh</p><p>command not found? your laggin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>heh heh hehcommand not found ?
your laggin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heh heh hehcommand not found?
your laggin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066458</id>
	<title>What does functionality have to do with anything?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1257073740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are thousands of patents for devices that duplicate the functionality of another.  Hell, the diesel engine has exactly the same function as a petrol engine, and much of the functionality of a Newcomen engine (pressure difference driving pistons to provide a motive force).  <br> <br>
The patent is on the process.  Not the end result.  <br> <br>
Now the process is pretty much indistinguishable from sudo as well, but if you're going to criticise at least criticise for the right reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are thousands of patents for devices that duplicate the functionality of another .
Hell , the diesel engine has exactly the same function as a petrol engine , and much of the functionality of a Newcomen engine ( pressure difference driving pistons to provide a motive force ) .
The patent is on the process .
Not the end result .
Now the process is pretty much indistinguishable from sudo as well , but if you 're going to criticise at least criticise for the right reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are thousands of patents for devices that duplicate the functionality of another.
Hell, the diesel engine has exactly the same function as a petrol engine, and much of the functionality of a Newcomen engine (pressure difference driving pistons to provide a motive force).
The patent is on the process.
Not the end result.
Now the process is pretty much indistinguishable from sudo as well, but if you're going to criticise at least criticise for the right reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070246</id>
	<title>Re:Liunx schminux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258017360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are thinking of just the root account, or maybe "su" which is really "login as root".</p></div><p>su switches to a user. If not specified, the target user is root.</p><p>Just a slight correction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are thinking of just the root account , or maybe " su " which is really " login as root " .su switches to a user .
If not specified , the target user is root.Just a slight correction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are thinking of just the root account, or maybe "su" which is really "login as root".su switches to a user.
If not specified, the target user is root.Just a slight correction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30073938</id>
	<title>Re:This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1258046940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, what it does allow for hypothetically is "Mr. Manager, I need you to come authorize this change on my PC for me" in a domain setting.</p><p>Oooh, *shudder* I just felt a ripple in the force.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , what it does allow for hypothetically is " Mr. Manager , I need you to come authorize this change on my PC for me " in a domain setting.Oooh , * shudder * I just felt a ripple in the force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, what it does allow for hypothetically is "Mr. Manager, I need you to come authorize this change on my PC for me" in a domain setting.Oooh, *shudder* I just felt a ripple in the force.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066284</id>
	<title>Just like XKCD</title>
	<author>kabloom</author>
	<datestamp>1257073020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft walked up to the patent office, and said "Give me a patent." The patent office said "No, there's prior art." Microsoft asked again "Sudo Give me a patent." The patent office replied "OK."</p><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/149/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/149/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft walked up to the patent office , and said " Give me a patent .
" The patent office said " No , there 's prior art .
" Microsoft asked again " Sudo Give me a patent .
" The patent office replied " OK. " http : //xkcd.com/149/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft walked up to the patent office, and said "Give me a patent.
" The patent office said "No, there's prior art.
" Microsoft asked again "Sudo Give me a patent.
" The patent office replied "OK."http://xkcd.com/149/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30085532</id>
	<title>Re:Not sudo.</title>
	<author>True Grit</author>
	<datestamp>1258119840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to have whatever that earlier mod was smoking...</p><p>Seriously guys, agree or disagree, this post is nowhere *near* to 'Troll' status.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to have whatever that earlier mod was smoking...Seriously guys , agree or disagree , this post is nowhere * near * to 'Troll ' status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to have whatever that earlier mod was smoking...Seriously guys, agree or disagree, this post is nowhere *near* to 'Troll' status.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30072738</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>illumin8</author>
	<datestamp>1258041840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And actually I haven't ever seen MS patent trolling, they've even gave their patents to organizations which purpose is to keep them open.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is demonstrably false.  Microsoft has used the threat of patent litigation to keep large customers away from Linux.  Microsoft has hinted publicly and through deals with partners like Novell that Linux infringes on patents, which are never specified, in order to give companies using or considering Linux fear of patent litigation.  This is the very definition of patent trolling.  They've only sued Tom Tom so far, but they use their patent arsenal as a weapon.</p><p>Patents are like nukes, even the threat of using them carries a lot of force.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And actually I have n't ever seen MS patent trolling , they 've even gave their patents to organizations which purpose is to keep them open.This is demonstrably false .
Microsoft has used the threat of patent litigation to keep large customers away from Linux .
Microsoft has hinted publicly and through deals with partners like Novell that Linux infringes on patents , which are never specified , in order to give companies using or considering Linux fear of patent litigation .
This is the very definition of patent trolling .
They 've only sued Tom Tom so far , but they use their patent arsenal as a weapon.Patents are like nukes , even the threat of using them carries a lot of force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And actually I haven't ever seen MS patent trolling, they've even gave their patents to organizations which purpose is to keep them open.This is demonstrably false.
Microsoft has used the threat of patent litigation to keep large customers away from Linux.
Microsoft has hinted publicly and through deals with partners like Novell that Linux infringes on patents, which are never specified, in order to give companies using or considering Linux fear of patent litigation.
This is the very definition of patent trolling.
They've only sued Tom Tom so far, but they use their patent arsenal as a weapon.Patents are like nukes, even the threat of using them carries a lot of force.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067638</id>
	<title>Quit Complaining and Start doing something.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257080460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no room to complain for the following reasons:</p><p>1.) The GNU/*NIX community knows MS is a patent troll.<br>2.) You know MS is out to get you.<br>3.) You have had tech out since 1979 that is open sourced, but not patented or<br>copyrighted.</p><p>Your argument sounds something like this:</p><p>1.) I live in a neighborhood filled with thieves.<br>2.) I saw some thieves casing my house.<br>3.) Hey, I will leave my front door open while I'm out, it will be great.<br>4.) Oh no, I've been robbed! How could this happen to me!</p><p>Here's the obvious question: Why hasn't someone in the GNU/Linux or Unix world<br>patented their stuff? Patent it, give it to a community trust of some sort, and<br>protect civilization from Microsoft. It doesn't take a genius.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no room to complain for the following reasons : 1 .
) The GNU/ * NIX community knows MS is a patent troll.2 .
) You know MS is out to get you.3 .
) You have had tech out since 1979 that is open sourced , but not patented orcopyrighted.Your argument sounds something like this : 1 .
) I live in a neighborhood filled with thieves.2 .
) I saw some thieves casing my house.3 .
) Hey , I will leave my front door open while I 'm out , it will be great.4 .
) Oh no , I 've been robbed !
How could this happen to me ! Here 's the obvious question : Why has n't someone in the GNU/Linux or Unix worldpatented their stuff ?
Patent it , give it to a community trust of some sort , andprotect civilization from Microsoft .
It does n't take a genius .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no room to complain for the following reasons:1.
) The GNU/*NIX community knows MS is a patent troll.2.
) You know MS is out to get you.3.
) You have had tech out since 1979 that is open sourced, but not patented orcopyrighted.Your argument sounds something like this:1.
) I live in a neighborhood filled with thieves.2.
) I saw some thieves casing my house.3.
) Hey, I will leave my front door open while I'm out, it will be great.4.
) Oh no, I've been robbed!
How could this happen to me!Here's the obvious question: Why hasn't someone in the GNU/Linux or Unix worldpatented their stuff?
Patent it, give it to a community trust of some sort, andprotect civilization from Microsoft.
It doesn't take a genius.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067082</id>
	<title>...and then there was the time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and then there was the time Micro$oft and Apple both stole the windows GUI concept from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (a la smalltalk) and then paid their lawyer$ million$ to fight about which of them (minus Xerox, of course) owned the "look and feel" of it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and then there was the time Micro $ oft and Apple both stole the windows GUI concept from Xerox 's Palo Alto Research Center ( a la smalltalk ) and then paid their lawyer $ million $ to fight about which of them ( minus Xerox , of course ) owned the " look and feel " of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and then there was the time Micro$oft and Apple both stole the windows GUI concept from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (a la smalltalk) and then paid their lawyer$ million$ to fight about which of them (minus Xerox, of course) owned the "look and feel" of it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069080</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft must be suffering from Cryptomnesia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft must be suffering from Cryptomnesia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft must be suffering from Cryptomnesia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066386</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>Xiaran</author>
	<datestamp>1257073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While Ill agree with you about sudo I would point out that many GUI systems including Linux and OS X *do* present a GUI when attempting to execute a task that requires higher permissions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While Ill agree with you about sudo I would point out that many GUI systems including Linux and OS X * do * present a GUI when attempting to execute a task that requires higher permissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Ill agree with you about sudo I would point out that many GUI systems including Linux and OS X *do* present a GUI when attempting to execute a task that requires higher permissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067610</id>
	<title>Re:Liunx schminux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257080340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$ man su<br>"The su command is used to become another user during a login session.<br>Invoked without a username, su defaults to becoming the superuser."...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."-c, --command COMMAND<br>Specify a command that will be invoked by the shell using its -c."...</p><p>Can su be used as an privilege escalation tool?<br>user1@home:~$ su user2 -c "rm -rf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/user2"<br>Yes, it'll do the job.</p><p>So, should the "freedom" of writing some kind of GUI to run some kind of software as another user be taken away from us (I bet it'd be a matter of a few hours)?<br>Hell no, software can be protected, ideas really *should* not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ man su " The su command is used to become another user during a login session.Invoked without a username , su defaults to becoming the superuser. " .. .
... " -c , --command COMMANDSpecify a command that will be invoked by the shell using its -c. " ...Can su be used as an privilege escalation tool ? user1 @ home : ~ $ su user2 -c " rm -rf /home/user2 " Yes , it 'll do the job.So , should the " freedom " of writing some kind of GUI to run some kind of software as another user be taken away from us ( I bet it 'd be a matter of a few hours ) ? Hell no , software can be protected , ideas really * should * not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$ man su"The su command is used to become another user during a login session.Invoked without a username, su defaults to becoming the superuser."...
..."-c, --command COMMANDSpecify a command that will be invoked by the shell using its -c."...Can su be used as an privilege escalation tool?user1@home:~$ su user2 -c "rm -rf /home/user2"Yes, it'll do the job.So, should the "freedom" of writing some kind of GUI to run some kind of software as another user be taken away from us (I bet it'd be a matter of a few hours)?Hell no, software can be protected, ideas really *should* not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068336</id>
	<title>oh, lol</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1257086040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and with all the "M$ is evil!" fanbois here continually claiming that UAC is nothing like sudo - they've even got some (albeit) flimsy support for their claim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and with all the " M $ is evil !
" fanbois here continually claiming that UAC is nothing like sudo - they 've even got some ( albeit ) flimsy support for their claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and with all the "M$ is evil!
" fanbois here continually claiming that UAC is nothing like sudo - they've even got some (albeit) flimsy support for their claim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067388</id>
	<title>So why does MS deserve a monopoly on this</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1257078720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, it's a neat idea and all, but why should I agree not to implement the same idea in my own way. If I can figure out how to do something in a different way (for example with different code) then I don't see why I should be prevented from doing so. The same goes for the car starter analogy. I don't see why the public benefits from being told how to do these things. If someone had put an electric starter motor on a car and kept the details secret about how he had done it, someone later would have figured it all out without the help of the patent. I just don't see what valuable rights the patent holder is giving up in exchange for the monopoly. The obviousness criteria should be applied to the method of doing something, not to the thing being done IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it 's a neat idea and all , but why should I agree not to implement the same idea in my own way .
If I can figure out how to do something in a different way ( for example with different code ) then I do n't see why I should be prevented from doing so .
The same goes for the car starter analogy .
I do n't see why the public benefits from being told how to do these things .
If someone had put an electric starter motor on a car and kept the details secret about how he had done it , someone later would have figured it all out without the help of the patent .
I just do n't see what valuable rights the patent holder is giving up in exchange for the monopoly .
The obviousness criteria should be applied to the method of doing something , not to the thing being done IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it's a neat idea and all, but why should I agree not to implement the same idea in my own way.
If I can figure out how to do something in a different way (for example with different code) then I don't see why I should be prevented from doing so.
The same goes for the car starter analogy.
I don't see why the public benefits from being told how to do these things.
If someone had put an electric starter motor on a car and kept the details secret about how he had done it, someone later would have figured it all out without the help of the patent.
I just don't see what valuable rights the patent holder is giving up in exchange for the monopoly.
The obviousness criteria should be applied to the method of doing something, not to the thing being done IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067808</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>rinoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257081540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the OP description:<br>
"the functionality of 'sudo' which is found in all Linux systems"</p><p>
Why is it you Linux boys always think everything was invented on Linux?
<br>
Unix</p><blockquote><div><p>From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudo" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudo</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p> The sudo ("su do", pronounced<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sudu/, though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sudo/ is also common, as is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sjudu/) command is a program for some Unix and Unix-like computer operating systems that allows users to run programs with the security privileges of another user (normally the superuser, a.k.a. root). Windows has a command runas which has similar functionality.</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the OP description : " the functionality of 'sudo ' which is found in all Linux systems " Why is it you Linux boys always think everything was invented on Linux ?
UnixFrom http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudo [ wikipedia.org ] The sudo ( " su do " , pronounced /sudu/ , though /sudo/ is also common , as is /sjudu/ ) command is a program for some Unix and Unix-like computer operating systems that allows users to run programs with the security privileges of another user ( normally the superuser , a.k.a .
root ) . Windows has a command runas which has similar functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the OP description:
"the functionality of 'sudo' which is found in all Linux systems"
Why is it you Linux boys always think everything was invented on Linux?
UnixFrom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudo [wikipedia.org]  The sudo ("su do", pronounced /sudu/, though /sudo/ is also common, as is /sjudu/) command is a program for some Unix and Unix-like computer operating systems that allows users to run programs with the security privileges of another user (normally the superuser, a.k.a.
root). Windows has a command runas which has similar functionality. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068184</id>
	<title>BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More and more bullshit keeps on coming from msft. I wonder where is the limit.</p><p>They should get some recognition, maybe an award or something</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More and more bullshit keeps on coming from msft .
I wonder where is the limit.They should get some recognition , maybe an award or something</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More and more bullshit keeps on coming from msft.
I wonder where is the limit.They should get some recognition, maybe an award or something</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066050</id>
	<title>Thought all was safe on the crazy patent front?</title>
	<author>EraserMouseMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257072120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What rock did you just crawl out from under?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What rock did you just crawl out from under ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What rock did you just crawl out from under?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066160</id>
	<title>"patent this obvious idea"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patent Office: "Rejected."</p><p>Microsoft: "<i>sudo</i> patent this obvious idea"</p><p>Patent Office: "Okay."</p><p>With apologies to <a href="http://xkcd.com/149/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">xkcd</a> [xkcd.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patent Office : " Rejected .
" Microsoft : " sudo patent this obvious idea " Patent Office : " Okay .
" With apologies to xkcd [ xkcd.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patent Office: "Rejected.
"Microsoft: "sudo patent this obvious idea"Patent Office: "Okay.
"With apologies to xkcd [xkcd.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070052</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258057140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It seems to me the patent would cover gksudo when invoked by an application that knows it doesn't have the necessary rights to perform an operation, but perhaps there's something I've missed?</i></p><p>"these systems and/or methods present a user interface <b>identifying an account having a right to permit a task</b>".  Does gksudo list accounts that have the rights?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me the patent would cover gksudo when invoked by an application that knows it does n't have the necessary rights to perform an operation , but perhaps there 's something I 've missed ?
" these systems and/or methods present a user interface identifying an account having a right to permit a task " .
Does gksudo list accounts that have the rights ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me the patent would cover gksudo when invoked by an application that knows it doesn't have the necessary rights to perform an operation, but perhaps there's something I've missed?
"these systems and/or methods present a user interface identifying an account having a right to permit a task".
Does gksudo list accounts that have the rights?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067560</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>Tacvek</author>
	<datestamp>1257079980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PPJ is a paralegal not a lawyer. (Unless I missed the notification that she took and passed the Bar exam.) (I did not see any indication that this was written by somebody other than PJ, but If you know something I don't about this article, please enlighten me.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PPJ is a paralegal not a lawyer .
( Unless I missed the notification that she took and passed the Bar exam .
) ( I did not see any indication that this was written by somebody other than PJ , but If you know something I do n't about this article , please enlighten me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PPJ is a paralegal not a lawyer.
(Unless I missed the notification that she took and passed the Bar exam.
) (I did not see any indication that this was written by somebody other than PJ, but If you know something I don't about this article, please enlighten me.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067144</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just patented the BSoD! Take that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just patented the BSoD !
Take that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just patented the BSoD!
Take that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066512</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1257073920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p> <b>in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>
Emphasis mine. Sudo does not do this. Thus, this patent does not cover sudo. Fini.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is a patent on using a custom error handler as a wrapper to call sudo, so you're right: it's not <i>sudo</i>. On the other hand, using existing tools for what they are designed for isn't supposed to rise to the level of patent-ability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in response to a task being prohibited based on a user 's current account not having a right to permit the task Emphasis mine .
Sudo does not do this .
Thus , this patent does not cover sudo .
Fini.This is a patent on using a custom error handler as a wrapper to call sudo , so you 're right : it 's not sudo .
On the other hand , using existing tools for what they are designed for is n't supposed to rise to the level of patent-ability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task 
Emphasis mine.
Sudo does not do this.
Thus, this patent does not cover sudo.
Fini.This is a patent on using a custom error handler as a wrapper to call sudo, so you're right: it's not sudo.
On the other hand, using existing tools for what they are designed for isn't supposed to rise to the level of patent-ability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067470</id>
	<title>Dennis Ritchie already patented this</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1257079200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dennis Ritchie patented the setuid bit in what was probably the first software patent ever, and released the patent to the public domain. I think that counts as a slam dunk prior art, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dennis Ritchie patented the setuid bit in what was probably the first software patent ever , and released the patent to the public domain .
I think that counts as a slam dunk prior art , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dennis Ritchie patented the setuid bit in what was probably the first software patent ever, and released the patent to the public domain.
I think that counts as a slam dunk prior art, no?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066420</id>
	<title>It's the other way round actually...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...with Windows' lax control of permissions allowing just about anybody to run as a super user, surely they should have a patent for "sudon't" which would probably be infinitely more useful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...with Windows ' lax control of permissions allowing just about anybody to run as a super user , surely they should have a patent for " sudo n't " which would probably be infinitely more useful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...with Windows' lax control of permissions allowing just about anybody to run as a super user, surely they should have a patent for "sudon't" which would probably be infinitely more useful?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067754</id>
	<title>Re:They didn't get it on their first try...</title>
	<author>MrNemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1257081120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; sudo make me a sandwich</p><p>&gt; I'm sorry Dave, but under USPTO 7617530 I can't allow you to do that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; sudo make me a sandwich &gt; I 'm sorry Dave , but under USPTO 7617530 I ca n't allow you to do that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; sudo make me a sandwich&gt; I'm sorry Dave, but under USPTO 7617530 I can't allow you to do that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066546</id>
	<title>Re:So what, they can have it.</title>
	<author>HeronBlademaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257074040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about having root, it's about <i>not having a root shell open</i>.  If I need to run<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin/foo as root, then it's preferable to run it with sudo than by invoking "su" and then running it as root, because with sudo I do not run the risk of forgetting to exit the root shell and then doing something else stupid in that shell.</p><p>Your argument may now be "well don't be stupid", but that's an entirely different issue, and doesn't mean we shouldn't have sudo around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about having root , it 's about not having a root shell open .
If I need to run /bin/foo as root , then it 's preferable to run it with sudo than by invoking " su " and then running it as root , because with sudo I do not run the risk of forgetting to exit the root shell and then doing something else stupid in that shell.Your argument may now be " well do n't be stupid " , but that 's an entirely different issue , and does n't mean we should n't have sudo around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about having root, it's about not having a root shell open.
If I need to run /bin/foo as root, then it's preferable to run it with sudo than by invoking "su" and then running it as root, because with sudo I do not run the risk of forgetting to exit the root shell and then doing something else stupid in that shell.Your argument may now be "well don't be stupid", but that's an entirely different issue, and doesn't mean we shouldn't have sudo around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067778</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation, and disagrees with you.</p></div><p>Who?  PJ?  She's a paralegal.  She lost credibility when she complained about the following paragraph:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological steps, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or steps described. Rather, the specific features and steps are disclosed as preferred forms of implementing the claimed invention.</p></div><p>
Guess what.  That's boiler plate.  Every patent application has it.  It's just says, "Hey, you folks on the jury!  The claims aren't limited to the embodiments in the specification."  Which is just plain, vanilla patent law.  It's just saying what the judge should tell them anyway.  Every single patent I write has a similar paragraph, and any competent patent attorney wouldn't blink an eye at it.</p><p>This may not be the most earth-shattering patent in the world, but unless your program has every single feature of the claims, you don't infringe.  And unless the prior art has every single feature of the claims, it doesn't anticipate.  Sudo doesn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation , and disagrees with you.Who ?
PJ ? She 's a paralegal .
She lost credibility when she complained about the following paragraph : Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological steps , it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or steps described .
Rather , the specific features and steps are disclosed as preferred forms of implementing the claimed invention .
Guess what .
That 's boiler plate .
Every patent application has it .
It 's just says , " Hey , you folks on the jury !
The claims are n't limited to the embodiments in the specification .
" Which is just plain , vanilla patent law .
It 's just saying what the judge should tell them anyway .
Every single patent I write has a similar paragraph , and any competent patent attorney would n't blink an eye at it.This may not be the most earth-shattering patent in the world , but unless your program has every single feature of the claims , you do n't infringe .
And unless the prior art has every single feature of the claims , it does n't anticipate .
Sudo does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation, and disagrees with you.Who?
PJ?  She's a paralegal.
She lost credibility when she complained about the following paragraph:Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological steps, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or steps described.
Rather, the specific features and steps are disclosed as preferred forms of implementing the claimed invention.
Guess what.
That's boiler plate.
Every patent application has it.
It's just says, "Hey, you folks on the jury!
The claims aren't limited to the embodiments in the specification.
"  Which is just plain, vanilla patent law.
It's just saying what the judge should tell them anyway.
Every single patent I write has a similar paragraph, and any competent patent attorney wouldn't blink an eye at it.This may not be the most earth-shattering patent in the world, but unless your program has every single feature of the claims, you don't infringe.
And unless the prior art has every single feature of the claims, it doesn't anticipate.
Sudo doesn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066430</id>
	<title>Liunx schminux</title>
	<author>wmduncan</author>
	<datestamp>1257073620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come one now - your bias is showing...

sudo existed on UNIX before Linus Torvalds was a gleam in his father's eye....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come one now - your bias is showing.. . sudo existed on UNIX before Linus Torvalds was a gleam in his father 's eye... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come one now - your bias is showing...

sudo existed on UNIX before Linus Torvalds was a gleam in his father's eye....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30072058</id>
	<title>Re:Liunx schminux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258038780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; You are thinking of just the root account, or maybe "su" which is really "login as root".</p><p>Hey Dumbass,<br>su has more than one feature.  Check out the -c option in the man page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; You are thinking of just the root account , or maybe " su " which is really " login as root " .Hey Dumbass,su has more than one feature .
Check out the -c option in the man page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; You are thinking of just the root account, or maybe "su" which is really "login as root".Hey Dumbass,su has more than one feature.
Check out the -c option in the man page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067016</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1257076500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So gksudo and OS X will show you the name of a user with sufficient privileges automatically if your account does not have sufficient privileges?  Because as far as I know, OS X and sudo simply as you to put in your password, not the password for another account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So gksudo and OS X will show you the name of a user with sufficient privileges automatically if your account does not have sufficient privileges ?
Because as far as I know , OS X and sudo simply as you to put in your password , not the password for another account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So gksudo and OS X will show you the name of a user with sufficient privileges automatically if your account does not have sufficient privileges?
Because as far as I know, OS X and sudo simply as you to put in your password, not the password for another account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30073444</id>
	<title>Patent would not cover sudo</title>
	<author>millert</author>
	<datestamp>1258044540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't sound like it would cover sudo to me, or even a GUI-wrapper for sudo.  While I am not a patent attorney, I have been hacking on sudo for the past 15+ years.</p><p>My reading of the patent indicates that it is geared towards GUI-based environments where the user may need to perform some action (such as setting the clock in a control panel) that requires increased privileges.  The actual "invention" appears to be that the user is able to perform an action as a different user without having to type in the name of that other user when authenticating.  One example given in that patent is the ability to click on a name in a list of privileged users as opposed to having to type in a user name.</p><p>Sudo simply doesn't work this way.  When a command is run via sudo the user is actively running the command as a different user.  What is described in the patent is a mechanism whereby an application or the operating system detects that an action needs to be run with increased privileges and automatically prompts the user with a list of potential users that have the appropriate privilege level to perform the task.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't sound like it would cover sudo to me , or even a GUI-wrapper for sudo .
While I am not a patent attorney , I have been hacking on sudo for the past 15 + years.My reading of the patent indicates that it is geared towards GUI-based environments where the user may need to perform some action ( such as setting the clock in a control panel ) that requires increased privileges .
The actual " invention " appears to be that the user is able to perform an action as a different user without having to type in the name of that other user when authenticating .
One example given in that patent is the ability to click on a name in a list of privileged users as opposed to having to type in a user name.Sudo simply does n't work this way .
When a command is run via sudo the user is actively running the command as a different user .
What is described in the patent is a mechanism whereby an application or the operating system detects that an action needs to be run with increased privileges and automatically prompts the user with a list of potential users that have the appropriate privilege level to perform the task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't sound like it would cover sudo to me, or even a GUI-wrapper for sudo.
While I am not a patent attorney, I have been hacking on sudo for the past 15+ years.My reading of the patent indicates that it is geared towards GUI-based environments where the user may need to perform some action (such as setting the clock in a control panel) that requires increased privileges.
The actual "invention" appears to be that the user is able to perform an action as a different user without having to type in the name of that other user when authenticating.
One example given in that patent is the ability to click on a name in a list of privileged users as opposed to having to type in a user name.Sudo simply doesn't work this way.
When a command is run via sudo the user is actively running the command as a different user.
What is described in the patent is a mechanism whereby an application or the operating system detects that an action needs to be run with increased privileges and automatically prompts the user with a list of potential users that have the appropriate privilege level to perform the task.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30073946</id>
	<title>Re:I created Sudo for Windows in 2005</title>
	<author>akutz</author>
	<datestamp>1258046940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I even wrote a security practical for SANS on sudowin (http://bit.ly/4b3Ohb) and how I achieved the program on Windows. Microsoft's filed patent directly apes how I created sudo for Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I even wrote a security practical for SANS on sudowin ( http : //bit.ly/4b3Ohb ) and how I achieved the program on Windows .
Microsoft 's filed patent directly apes how I created sudo for Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I even wrote a security practical for SANS on sudowin (http://bit.ly/4b3Ohb) and how I achieved the program on Windows.
Microsoft's filed patent directly apes how I created sudo for Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30071054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30076028</id>
	<title>In Ubuntu, whenever I try to mount a drive</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258053360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but don't have the necessary privilege, I am presented with a list of users who do have such privilege and I am prompted pick a particular user and to provide that user's password.</i></p><p>Thanks, I thought there might be a utility that does that. This is better.  And worse.  I want to install Ubuntu on my Mac and I don't want to need to set privileges for each user to mount drives.  Right now I have 3 user accounts on my Mac, only one is an admin account and the only reason that account is used to update the system and for installations.  I also have external hard disk drives I use as backups, currently I keep a running backup by copying saved files to an external drive.  I want to set up rsync for that though, I also clone my drives.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but do n't have the necessary privilege , I am presented with a list of users who do have such privilege and I am prompted pick a particular user and to provide that user 's password.Thanks , I thought there might be a utility that does that .
This is better .
And worse .
I want to install Ubuntu on my Mac and I do n't want to need to set privileges for each user to mount drives .
Right now I have 3 user accounts on my Mac , only one is an admin account and the only reason that account is used to update the system and for installations .
I also have external hard disk drives I use as backups , currently I keep a running backup by copying saved files to an external drive .
I want to set up rsync for that though , I also clone my drives .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but don't have the necessary privilege, I am presented with a list of users who do have such privilege and I am prompted pick a particular user and to provide that user's password.Thanks, I thought there might be a utility that does that.
This is better.
And worse.
I want to install Ubuntu on my Mac and I don't want to need to set privileges for each user to mount drives.
Right now I have 3 user accounts on my Mac, only one is an admin account and the only reason that account is used to update the system and for installations.
I also have external hard disk drives I use as backups, currently I keep a running backup by copying saved files to an external drive.
I want to set up rsync for that though, I also clone my drives.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30071214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066478</id>
	<title>Prior art?</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1257073800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't OS X do this already?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't OS X do this already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't OS X do this already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070266</id>
	<title>sudo does that?</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1258017600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here I thought sudo did the opposite of that.</p><p>Sudo let's you say "I know I need more privileges to run this program. Here is the user I would like to run it as instead."</p><p>this patent let's you say "Run this program" and have the OS respond "That won't work, you probably want to run as Steve or Administrator. Shall I run it as one of them?"</p><p>This is very, very different, no matter how little you notice since behind-the-scenes, a program is calling "sudo" when it guesses it needs to. This is another thing, like one-click-shopping, which was probably "obvious" to everybody, but discarded as poor UI ("I'd rather the user need to explicitly ask for privileges, to prevent mistakes.")</p><p>But this is <em>not</em> what sudo does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here I thought sudo did the opposite of that.Sudo let 's you say " I know I need more privileges to run this program .
Here is the user I would like to run it as instead .
" this patent let 's you say " Run this program " and have the OS respond " That wo n't work , you probably want to run as Steve or Administrator .
Shall I run it as one of them ?
" This is very , very different , no matter how little you notice since behind-the-scenes , a program is calling " sudo " when it guesses it needs to .
This is another thing , like one-click-shopping , which was probably " obvious " to everybody , but discarded as poor UI ( " I 'd rather the user need to explicitly ask for privileges , to prevent mistakes .
" ) But this is not what sudo does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here I thought sudo did the opposite of that.Sudo let's you say "I know I need more privileges to run this program.
Here is the user I would like to run it as instead.
"this patent let's you say "Run this program" and have the OS respond "That won't work, you probably want to run as Steve or Administrator.
Shall I run it as one of them?
"This is very, very different, no matter how little you notice since behind-the-scenes, a program is calling "sudo" when it guesses it needs to.
This is another thing, like one-click-shopping, which was probably "obvious" to everybody, but discarded as poor UI ("I'd rather the user need to explicitly ask for privileges, to prevent mistakes.
")But this is not what sudo does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066554</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1257074040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no clue what OS X does, but gksudo does not. gksudo is just a graphical front end, it does not come up "in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task." gksudo is in some instances called <i>proactively</i> and <i>explicitly</i> by certain programs (like gnome control center windows). But it does not transparently operate behind the scenes, elevating programs based on OS level privilege failures, as this patent describes. You are confusing proactive and explicit use with reactive and automatic use, as the patent covers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no clue what OS X does , but gksudo does not .
gksudo is just a graphical front end , it does not come up " in response to a task being prohibited based on a user 's current account not having a right to permit the task .
" gksudo is in some instances called proactively and explicitly by certain programs ( like gnome control center windows ) .
But it does not transparently operate behind the scenes , elevating programs based on OS level privilege failures , as this patent describes .
You are confusing proactive and explicit use with reactive and automatic use , as the patent covers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no clue what OS X does, but gksudo does not.
gksudo is just a graphical front end, it does not come up "in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task.
" gksudo is in some instances called proactively and explicitly by certain programs (like gnome control center windows).
But it does not transparently operate behind the scenes, elevating programs based on OS level privilege failures, as this patent describes.
You are confusing proactive and explicit use with reactive and automatic use, as the patent covers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066910</id>
	<title>Re:So what, they can have it.</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1257075960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What is the point anyway ? Either you've got root, or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It's one thing to have to give a single (presumably trusted, limited) process permission to execute, and another thing entirely to blindly trust the OS and give it permission to do anything, anytime (that's called Windows).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It's like having your dad's car keys when he's on vacation out of town, vs. driving your dad somewhere.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the point anyway ?
Either you 've got root , or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges .
      It 's one thing to have to give a single ( presumably trusted , limited ) process permission to execute , and another thing entirely to blindly trust the OS and give it permission to do anything , anytime ( that 's called Windows ) .
      It 's like having your dad 's car keys when he 's on vacation out of town , vs. driving your dad somewhere .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the point anyway ?
Either you've got root, or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.
      It's one thing to have to give a single (presumably trusted, limited) process permission to execute, and another thing entirely to blindly trust the OS and give it permission to do anything, anytime (that's called Windows).
      It's like having your dad's car keys when he's on vacation out of town, vs. driving your dad somewhere.
     </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156</id>
	<title>Stop with the alarmist headlines already</title>
	<author>techno-vampire</author>
	<datestamp>1257072600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know Slashdot loves to exaggerate things in headlines, but this is absurd.  Microsoft has not patented sudo's behavior.  At most, it has <i>applied</i> for a patent who's claims could be twisted to make it look like they're trying to patent sudo.  Calm down, everybody, it's just an application, the patent hasn't been awarded and, if it's as ridiculous as the summary claims (and I have my doubts about that, too) it's unlikely to be granted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know Slashdot loves to exaggerate things in headlines , but this is absurd .
Microsoft has not patented sudo 's behavior .
At most , it has applied for a patent who 's claims could be twisted to make it look like they 're trying to patent sudo .
Calm down , everybody , it 's just an application , the patent has n't been awarded and , if it 's as ridiculous as the summary claims ( and I have my doubts about that , too ) it 's unlikely to be granted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know Slashdot loves to exaggerate things in headlines, but this is absurd.
Microsoft has not patented sudo's behavior.
At most, it has applied for a patent who's claims could be twisted to make it look like they're trying to patent sudo.
Calm down, everybody, it's just an application, the patent hasn't been awarded and, if it's as ridiculous as the summary claims (and I have my doubts about that, too) it's unlikely to be granted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070034</id>
	<title>Microsoft security at its finest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258056780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I want to escalate my privilege but don't want the hassle of attacking the professional administrators' accounts?</p><p>No problem - Just try to do what I shouldn't and see what names the system gives me...</p><p>Brilliant! Brenda from accounts has the elevated privilege because she had her boss harass the admins until they gave in.</p><p>I'll just wander over to her desk and check her monitor and under her keyboard for post-its with her password</p><p>And Microsoft are so proud of this that they patented it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I want to escalate my privilege but do n't want the hassle of attacking the professional administrators ' accounts ? No problem - Just try to do what I should n't and see what names the system gives me...Brilliant !
Brenda from accounts has the elevated privilege because she had her boss harass the admins until they gave in.I 'll just wander over to her desk and check her monitor and under her keyboard for post-its with her passwordAnd Microsoft are so proud of this that they patented it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I want to escalate my privilege but don't want the hassle of attacking the professional administrators' accounts?No problem - Just try to do what I shouldn't and see what names the system gives me...Brilliant!
Brenda from accounts has the elevated privilege because she had her boss harass the admins until they gave in.I'll just wander over to her desk and check her monitor and under her keyboard for post-its with her passwordAnd Microsoft are so proud of this that they patented it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066920</id>
	<title>Re:I have prior work</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1257076020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since the Examiner specifically looked at sudo and said "gee, this invention is patentably different", I'm gonna say yeah, you're not affected by this patent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the Examiner specifically looked at sudo and said " gee , this invention is patentably different " , I 'm gon na say yeah , you 're not affected by this patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the Examiner specifically looked at sudo and said "gee, this invention is patentably different", I'm gonna say yeah, you're not affected by this patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066854</id>
	<title>Another pointless article on patents</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257075720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much any patent analysis by people who have not read the claims and specification is worthless. Slashdot should just ban all articles about patents, since said articles are uniformly worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much any patent analysis by people who have not read the claims and specification is worthless .
Slashdot should just ban all articles about patents , since said articles are uniformly worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much any patent analysis by people who have not read the claims and specification is worthless.
Slashdot should just ban all articles about patents, since said articles are uniformly worthless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069826</id>
	<title>Re:So what, they can have it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>sudo is shit. What is the point anyway ? Either you've got root, or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.</i> </p><p>Isn't it a shame that there will always be the dull students in the back of the room who always seem to miss the point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sudo is shit .
What is the point anyway ?
Either you 've got root , or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges .
Is n't it a shame that there will always be the dull students in the back of the room who always seem to miss the point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sudo is shit.
What is the point anyway ?
Either you've got root, or you assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.
Isn't it a shame that there will always be the dull students in the back of the room who always seem to miss the point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067260</id>
	<title>Re:I have prior work</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1257077940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to this, you're late:</p><p><a href="http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/history.html" title="www.sudo.ws">http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/history.html</a> [www.sudo.ws]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this , you 're late : http : //www.sudo.ws/sudo/history.html [ www.sudo.ws ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this, you're late:http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/history.html [www.sudo.ws]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066958</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1257076200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nonsense. PJ at Grocklaw can't read worth shiat.  Here's the crux of the patent right here:
<br> <br>
"In one embodiment, the tools present a <b>user interface</b> to a user whereby the user may elevate his or her rights <b>without having to search for or type in an account name</b>. This user interface may be presented in response to a request to perform a task requiring a right not permitted by the user's current account. In some cases, for example, the <b>tools determine which accounts have rights sufficient to enable a user to perform a task</b> not permitted by a user's current account. The tools may then present these accounts and enable the user to select and submit an authenticator for one of these accounts.  "
<br> <br>
If you don't have rights to perform an action, and your account doesn't have rights elevation privileges (e.g. you aren't in the sudoers file), then the OS will pop up a window that shows an account that DOES have the correct rights that you can type the password into if you know it.  As far as I know, sudo doesn't automatically find a different user's account for you to log in with, so if you're account isn't in the sudoers file, you're screwed.  And you could use su, but you'd still have to know that account name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
PJ at Grocklaw ca n't read worth shiat .
Here 's the crux of the patent right here : " In one embodiment , the tools present a user interface to a user whereby the user may elevate his or her rights without having to search for or type in an account name .
This user interface may be presented in response to a request to perform a task requiring a right not permitted by the user 's current account .
In some cases , for example , the tools determine which accounts have rights sufficient to enable a user to perform a task not permitted by a user 's current account .
The tools may then present these accounts and enable the user to select and submit an authenticator for one of these accounts .
" If you do n't have rights to perform an action , and your account does n't have rights elevation privileges ( e.g .
you are n't in the sudoers file ) , then the OS will pop up a window that shows an account that DOES have the correct rights that you can type the password into if you know it .
As far as I know , sudo does n't automatically find a different user 's account for you to log in with , so if you 're account is n't in the sudoers file , you 're screwed .
And you could use su , but you 'd still have to know that account name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
PJ at Grocklaw can't read worth shiat.
Here's the crux of the patent right here:
 
"In one embodiment, the tools present a user interface to a user whereby the user may elevate his or her rights without having to search for or type in an account name.
This user interface may be presented in response to a request to perform a task requiring a right not permitted by the user's current account.
In some cases, for example, the tools determine which accounts have rights sufficient to enable a user to perform a task not permitted by a user's current account.
The tools may then present these accounts and enable the user to select and submit an authenticator for one of these accounts.
"
 
If you don't have rights to perform an action, and your account doesn't have rights elevation privileges (e.g.
you aren't in the sudoers file), then the OS will pop up a window that shows an account that DOES have the correct rights that you can type the password into if you know it.
As far as I know, sudo doesn't automatically find a different user's account for you to log in with, so if you're account isn't in the sudoers file, you're screwed.
And you could use su, but you'd still have to know that account name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30167970</id>
	<title>Re:This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>MarkKB</author>
	<datestamp>1258650720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Regarding launching a GUI window when a privilege violation occurs, this is precisely why Windows got the "Allow or Deny" reputation it got. You really don't want to authorize every little action.</p></div><p>The implication is that it would only do this only when it detects you don't have sufficient privileges, and then prompt you for an admin user name and password who has these privs. This is a Good Thing - it bars from malicious software taking advantage of silent elevation for a period of time (on systems such as gksudo). It also makes running as limited users feasible on Windows (as opposed to Windows XP, where you could do almost nothing on a limited account.)</p><p>Admittedly, what the patent describes is not the same as UAC (as described below), otherwise it'd be far more chatty than it is now. I did hear that in the early builds of Longhorn (post-2004 reset) that had UAC, it was far more chatty than it was when Vista was released, so it may have been the way it was originally</p><p>(However, Windows does detect if a program is denied privileges without asking for UAC, then asks you if you want to configure it so it will launch as admin next time you launch it (after prompting, of course.)</p><p>Also note that on Windows Vista and up in limited accounts, UAC shows you a list of admin accounts and prompts for their password when you click on one. I've noticed quite a few people are not aware of this, so I might as well throw it in.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Further, when it comes to a typical desktop environment, a rights system should not be so complex that there are more than about two classes of users anyway---those who have the rights to modify system files and those who are limited to their own files.</p> </div><p>By this definition, every OS's rights management system is overly complex.</p><p>A simple explanation is this: Windows uses a system where rights are defined both at the user, admin and system level. Some users may have rights over files that other users don't. The system described in the patent would scan for users that have privileges to operate on the file, and bring them up.</p><p>Right now, I believe (I may be wrong) UAC merely brings up a list of users with greater privileges than the current user (i.e. admin users.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, I'm under the impression (based on the patent) that Windows is temporarily elevating the privileges of the application itself, which means that you now have a much larger chunk of code that must be checked for security holes, lest malicious individuals co-opt the application for nefarious purposes. Such a design also makes it very hard to adequately use code signing to ensure the authenticity of the code running with elevated privileges, thus allowing security holes in the app to readily be exploited and turned into the equivalent of root holes just by the user clicking "Allow".</p></div><p>One might assume that the system described in the patent may be able to theoretically detect only the function in which the part requesting elevation is being run and elevate it only for the duration of it's run. That's not what UAC does either, although it does do something similar.</p><p>UAC works in two main ways:</p><p>a) the program is explicitly told to elevate. This happens at launch, and will elevate the entire program.<br>b) the program uses COM to elevate and run a portion of code (usually in a DLL file). This can occur any time during the program's run time, and will only elevate the function being run.</p><p>I'm not sure if Linux has an equivalent for the latter, so if it does, I wouldn't mind knowing. But the former is basically the equivalent of gksudo.</p><p>(Arguably, non-elevated-ness shoould not be an excuse for not performing security audits of your code, since anyone can sudo/runas your software. Realistically, I recognise that one may not have the time if one is independent, but then I believe you should get someone to review or look over your work.)</p><p>I'd like to add that in Windows Vista and above, there's no concept of a user like Linux's 'root'. Even when an app is elevated, there are restrictions on what it can do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding launching a GUI window when a privilege violation occurs , this is precisely why Windows got the " Allow or Deny " reputation it got .
You really do n't want to authorize every little action.The implication is that it would only do this only when it detects you do n't have sufficient privileges , and then prompt you for an admin user name and password who has these privs .
This is a Good Thing - it bars from malicious software taking advantage of silent elevation for a period of time ( on systems such as gksudo ) .
It also makes running as limited users feasible on Windows ( as opposed to Windows XP , where you could do almost nothing on a limited account .
) Admittedly , what the patent describes is not the same as UAC ( as described below ) , otherwise it 'd be far more chatty than it is now .
I did hear that in the early builds of Longhorn ( post-2004 reset ) that had UAC , it was far more chatty than it was when Vista was released , so it may have been the way it was originally ( However , Windows does detect if a program is denied privileges without asking for UAC , then asks you if you want to configure it so it will launch as admin next time you launch it ( after prompting , of course .
) Also note that on Windows Vista and up in limited accounts , UAC shows you a list of admin accounts and prompts for their password when you click on one .
I 've noticed quite a few people are not aware of this , so I might as well throw it in.Further , when it comes to a typical desktop environment , a rights system should not be so complex that there are more than about two classes of users anyway---those who have the rights to modify system files and those who are limited to their own files .
By this definition , every OS 's rights management system is overly complex.A simple explanation is this : Windows uses a system where rights are defined both at the user , admin and system level .
Some users may have rights over files that other users do n't .
The system described in the patent would scan for users that have privileges to operate on the file , and bring them up.Right now , I believe ( I may be wrong ) UAC merely brings up a list of users with greater privileges than the current user ( i.e .
admin users .
) Also , I 'm under the impression ( based on the patent ) that Windows is temporarily elevating the privileges of the application itself , which means that you now have a much larger chunk of code that must be checked for security holes , lest malicious individuals co-opt the application for nefarious purposes .
Such a design also makes it very hard to adequately use code signing to ensure the authenticity of the code running with elevated privileges , thus allowing security holes in the app to readily be exploited and turned into the equivalent of root holes just by the user clicking " Allow " .One might assume that the system described in the patent may be able to theoretically detect only the function in which the part requesting elevation is being run and elevate it only for the duration of it 's run .
That 's not what UAC does either , although it does do something similar.UAC works in two main ways : a ) the program is explicitly told to elevate .
This happens at launch , and will elevate the entire program.b ) the program uses COM to elevate and run a portion of code ( usually in a DLL file ) .
This can occur any time during the program 's run time , and will only elevate the function being run.I 'm not sure if Linux has an equivalent for the latter , so if it does , I would n't mind knowing .
But the former is basically the equivalent of gksudo .
( Arguably , non-elevated-ness shoould not be an excuse for not performing security audits of your code , since anyone can sudo/runas your software .
Realistically , I recognise that one may not have the time if one is independent , but then I believe you should get someone to review or look over your work .
) I 'd like to add that in Windows Vista and above , there 's no concept of a user like Linux 's 'root' .
Even when an app is elevated , there are restrictions on what it can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding launching a GUI window when a privilege violation occurs, this is precisely why Windows got the "Allow or Deny" reputation it got.
You really don't want to authorize every little action.The implication is that it would only do this only when it detects you don't have sufficient privileges, and then prompt you for an admin user name and password who has these privs.
This is a Good Thing - it bars from malicious software taking advantage of silent elevation for a period of time (on systems such as gksudo).
It also makes running as limited users feasible on Windows (as opposed to Windows XP, where you could do almost nothing on a limited account.
)Admittedly, what the patent describes is not the same as UAC (as described below), otherwise it'd be far more chatty than it is now.
I did hear that in the early builds of Longhorn (post-2004 reset) that had UAC, it was far more chatty than it was when Vista was released, so it may have been the way it was originally(However, Windows does detect if a program is denied privileges without asking for UAC, then asks you if you want to configure it so it will launch as admin next time you launch it (after prompting, of course.
)Also note that on Windows Vista and up in limited accounts, UAC shows you a list of admin accounts and prompts for their password when you click on one.
I've noticed quite a few people are not aware of this, so I might as well throw it in.Further, when it comes to a typical desktop environment, a rights system should not be so complex that there are more than about two classes of users anyway---those who have the rights to modify system files and those who are limited to their own files.
By this definition, every OS's rights management system is overly complex.A simple explanation is this: Windows uses a system where rights are defined both at the user, admin and system level.
Some users may have rights over files that other users don't.
The system described in the patent would scan for users that have privileges to operate on the file, and bring them up.Right now, I believe (I may be wrong) UAC merely brings up a list of users with greater privileges than the current user (i.e.
admin users.
)Also, I'm under the impression (based on the patent) that Windows is temporarily elevating the privileges of the application itself, which means that you now have a much larger chunk of code that must be checked for security holes, lest malicious individuals co-opt the application for nefarious purposes.
Such a design also makes it very hard to adequately use code signing to ensure the authenticity of the code running with elevated privileges, thus allowing security holes in the app to readily be exploited and turned into the equivalent of root holes just by the user clicking "Allow".One might assume that the system described in the patent may be able to theoretically detect only the function in which the part requesting elevation is being run and elevate it only for the duration of it's run.
That's not what UAC does either, although it does do something similar.UAC works in two main ways:a) the program is explicitly told to elevate.
This happens at launch, and will elevate the entire program.b) the program uses COM to elevate and run a portion of code (usually in a DLL file).
This can occur any time during the program's run time, and will only elevate the function being run.I'm not sure if Linux has an equivalent for the latter, so if it does, I wouldn't mind knowing.
But the former is basically the equivalent of gksudo.
(Arguably, non-elevated-ness shoould not be an excuse for not performing security audits of your code, since anyone can sudo/runas your software.
Realistically, I recognise that one may not have the time if one is independent, but then I believe you should get someone to review or look over your work.
)I'd like to add that in Windows Vista and above, there's no concept of a user like Linux's 'root'.
Even when an app is elevated, there are restrictions on what it can do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066310</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the alarmist headlines already</title>
	<author>lilo\_booter</author>
	<datestamp>1257073140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, MS has applied for a patent on sudo's behaviour and that is what the title is ridiculing - as should we. Regardless of their success or failure, we're entitled to point and laugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , MS has applied for a patent on sudo 's behaviour and that is what the title is ridiculing - as should we .
Regardless of their success or failure , we 're entitled to point and laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, MS has applied for a patent on sudo's behaviour and that is what the title is ridiculing - as should we.
Regardless of their success or failure, we're entitled to point and laugh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068260</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1257085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has to patent sudo to cover its ass? Really?</p><p>Really?</p><p>I can think of 100 other things they could do that would cover their (enormous) ass a lot better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has to patent sudo to cover its ass ?
Really ? Really ? I can think of 100 other things they could do that would cover their ( enormous ) ass a lot better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has to patent sudo to cover its ass?
Really?Really?I can think of 100 other things they could do that would cover their (enormous) ass a lot better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068888</id>
	<title>New commercial</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1257091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm Steve Ballmer, and sudo was MY idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm Steve Ballmer , and sudo was MY idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm Steve Ballmer, and sudo was MY idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482</id>
	<title>I have prior work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am the original author of "priv", which came before sudo, and I didn't see any mention of it.  This utility was published in Unix World back in 1987, and basically did the same thing.  Does this mean "priv" is exempt from this patent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the original author of " priv " , which came before sudo , and I did n't see any mention of it .
This utility was published in Unix World back in 1987 , and basically did the same thing .
Does this mean " priv " is exempt from this patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the original author of "priv", which came before sudo, and I didn't see any mention of it.
This utility was published in Unix World back in 1987, and basically did the same thing.
Does this mean "priv" is exempt from this patent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066676</id>
	<title>in microsoft's defense</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1257074640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the idea of sudo is probably completely new to them even after decades to think about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the idea of sudo is probably completely new to them even after decades to think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the idea of sudo is probably completely new to them even after decades to think about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066198</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1257072720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that the following, the author's only analysis of the claims of the patent, is really an air-tight disassembly of its value:</p><p>"Etc. blah, blah. Dude. It's sudo. With a gui. Sudo for Dummies. That's what it is. Software and patents need to get a divorce, before all the geeks in the world either stop coding in disgust or die laughing."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that the following , the author 's only analysis of the claims of the patent , is really an air-tight disassembly of its value : " Etc .
blah , blah .
Dude. It 's sudo .
With a gui .
Sudo for Dummies .
That 's what it is .
Software and patents need to get a divorce , before all the geeks in the world either stop coding in disgust or die laughing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that the following, the author's only analysis of the claims of the patent, is really an air-tight disassembly of its value:"Etc.
blah, blah.
Dude. It's sudo.
With a gui.
Sudo for Dummies.
That's what it is.
Software and patents need to get a divorce, before all the geeks in the world either stop coding in disgust or die laughing.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066492</id>
	<title>Waiting on this story...</title>
	<author>Caviller</author>
	<datestamp>1257073800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Company X patents government.<br>
<br>
Company X today has patented the business process know as 'government'.  Governments are now required to give X dollars in license feeds per year to Company X in order to stay a sovereign country.  Failure to pay fees will result in abandoning you right to sovereignty and becomming a subsideary of Company X.  USPTO's response said that this will spur inovation and development of countries by helping them all work as one instead of all the different types there are today.<br>
<br>
<br>
Comments:<br>
<br>
Well....(Score: 5, Sad)<br>
Aparently America has already forgot to pay the fees....lol, i kid,i kid....maybe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Company X patents government .
Company X today has patented the business process know as 'government' .
Governments are now required to give X dollars in license feeds per year to Company X in order to stay a sovereign country .
Failure to pay fees will result in abandoning you right to sovereignty and becomming a subsideary of Company X. USPTO 's response said that this will spur inovation and development of countries by helping them all work as one instead of all the different types there are today .
Comments : Well.... ( Score : 5 , Sad ) Aparently America has already forgot to pay the fees....lol , i kid,i kid....maybe ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Company X patents government.
Company X today has patented the business process know as 'government'.
Governments are now required to give X dollars in license feeds per year to Company X in order to stay a sovereign country.
Failure to pay fees will result in abandoning you right to sovereignty and becomming a subsideary of Company X.  USPTO's response said that this will spur inovation and development of countries by helping them all work as one instead of all the different types there are today.
Comments:

Well....(Score: 5, Sad)
Aparently America has already forgot to pay the fees....lol, i kid,i kid....maybe ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066684</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>cromar</author>
	<datestamp>1257074700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe MS doesn't patent troll, <i>per se</i>, but they have certainly <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2007/01/linux-20070128.ars" title="arstechnica.com">done some bullying using the patent system</a> [arstechnica.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe MS does n't patent troll , per se , but they have certainly done some bullying using the patent system [ arstechnica.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe MS doesn't patent troll, per se, but they have certainly done some bullying using the patent system [arstechnica.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30080184</id>
	<title>Re:This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1258024620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed for the most part.  As you said, if one were to implement something in Linux, odds are they would implement it as part of the install process, not part of the app, and it would make the permissions changes needed (and do this once), not run the entire tool as root where the user could accidentally save a scanned image as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/boot/vmlinuz or whatever....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>On the other hand, one could reasonably ask why xsane should need elevated privileges to capture and control a non-keyboard, non-disk USB device in the first place.  I tend to prefer the Mac OS X policy on this one.  In Mac OS X, an application can control a scanner from user space with ordinary user (not admin) privileges.  That seems much more sensible to me as a general policy.  Secure things that reasonably need to be secured for reasons of data privacy (disks and keyboards) or system protection (certain parts of the filesystem hierarchy such as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var), let daemons request exclusive access for devices where it is needed (like printers), and leave things that don't really  need a security policy unsecured.</p><p>Unless, of course, you're talking about an ancient SCSI scanner, in which case I can understand the desire to keep those interfaces reserved for use by code running as root, if only because of the complexity of sorting out these rights relative to other SCSI devices like disks....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed for the most part .
As you said , if one were to implement something in Linux , odds are they would implement it as part of the install process , not part of the app , and it would make the permissions changes needed ( and do this once ) , not run the entire tool as root where the user could accidentally save a scanned image as /boot/vmlinuz or whatever.... : - ) On the other hand , one could reasonably ask why xsane should need elevated privileges to capture and control a non-keyboard , non-disk USB device in the first place .
I tend to prefer the Mac OS X policy on this one .
In Mac OS X , an application can control a scanner from user space with ordinary user ( not admin ) privileges .
That seems much more sensible to me as a general policy .
Secure things that reasonably need to be secured for reasons of data privacy ( disks and keyboards ) or system protection ( certain parts of the filesystem hierarchy such as /etc , /usr , and /var ) , let daemons request exclusive access for devices where it is needed ( like printers ) , and leave things that do n't really need a security policy unsecured.Unless , of course , you 're talking about an ancient SCSI scanner , in which case I can understand the desire to keep those interfaces reserved for use by code running as root , if only because of the complexity of sorting out these rights relative to other SCSI devices like disks... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed for the most part.
As you said, if one were to implement something in Linux, odds are they would implement it as part of the install process, not part of the app, and it would make the permissions changes needed (and do this once), not run the entire tool as root where the user could accidentally save a scanned image as /boot/vmlinuz or whatever.... :-)On the other hand, one could reasonably ask why xsane should need elevated privileges to capture and control a non-keyboard, non-disk USB device in the first place.
I tend to prefer the Mac OS X policy on this one.
In Mac OS X, an application can control a scanner from user space with ordinary user (not admin) privileges.
That seems much more sensible to me as a general policy.
Secure things that reasonably need to be secured for reasons of data privacy (disks and keyboards) or system protection (certain parts of the filesystem hierarchy such as /etc, /usr, and /var), let daemons request exclusive access for devices where it is needed (like printers), and leave things that don't really  need a security policy unsecured.Unless, of course, you're talking about an ancient SCSI scanner, in which case I can understand the desire to keep those interfaces reserved for use by code running as root, if only because of the complexity of sorting out these rights relative to other SCSI devices like disks....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067064</id>
	<title>Pseudocode</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1257076740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a better solution would be for the patent to be described using pseudocode or some variation thereof. Since this is afterall a software patent, the application should be written in a form that is legible to others in the field. It would also lead to easier settlement of a dispute since previous art could more easily be compared with pseudocode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a better solution would be for the patent to be described using pseudocode or some variation thereof .
Since this is afterall a software patent , the application should be written in a form that is legible to others in the field .
It would also lead to easier settlement of a dispute since previous art could more easily be compared with pseudocode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a better solution would be for the patent to be described using pseudocode or some variation thereof.
Since this is afterall a software patent, the application should be written in a form that is legible to others in the field.
It would also lead to easier settlement of a dispute since previous art could more easily be compared with pseudocode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067510</id>
	<title>found in all Linux systems</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1257079620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And a bunch of others. Just an FYI the world does not circle around the LInux/Microsoft rivalry. Some of us are in neither camp and just want to get our jobs done, without all the bickering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And a bunch of others .
Just an FYI the world does not circle around the LInux/Microsoft rivalry .
Some of us are in neither camp and just want to get our jobs done , without all the bickering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And a bunch of others.
Just an FYI the world does not circle around the LInux/Microsoft rivalry.
Some of us are in neither camp and just want to get our jobs done, without all the bickering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066902</id>
	<title>Re:Prior art?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NeXTStep did this as well, way back at least 1993 (when I first started using them, I'm sure it was in there with version 1.0).  It was a service in the services menu to run as a user or root.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NeXTStep did this as well , way back at least 1993 ( when I first started using them , I 'm sure it was in there with version 1.0 ) .
It was a service in the services menu to run as a user or root .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NeXTStep did this as well, way back at least 1993 (when I first started using them, I'm sure it was in there with version 1.0).
It was a service in the services menu to run as a user or root.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066994</id>
	<title>Re:This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1257076380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This patent was filed more than four years ago, in April of 2005.  This filing predates Red Hat's announcement of PolicyKit by about a year.  And PolicyKit probably wouldn't cover this even if it predated the Microsoft concept because it doesn't meet the "automatic" criteria, AFAIK.</p><p>And for anyone thinking that this is a patent on sudo, it is not.  It also is not a patent on Apple's AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges, though it is much closer to that.  It differs from the Mac OS X design in that it:</p><ul>
<li>Executes when the privilege violation occurs without requiring the app to be aware.  This is, of course, a really dangerous idea for reasons I'll get into momentarily.</li><li>Displays a list of accounts with the appropriate privilege.  This is arguably not that useful on most OSes, but it is important if you have a rights system that is way too complicated....</li></ul><p>It further differs from sudo in that it presents a GUI (in addition to the two ways above).</p><p>Regarding launching a GUI window when a privilege violation occurs, this is precisely why Windows got the "Allow or Deny" reputation it got.  You really don't want to authorize every little action.  Further, when it comes to a typical desktop environment, a rights system should not be so complex that there are more than about two classes of users anyway---those who have the rights to modify system files and those who are limited to their own files.  Therefore, something like sudo, PolicyKit, AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges, etc. is generally a much better design because it puts the application in control of the experience and allows you to run a series of actions with elevated privileges, forcing apps to be designed with proper privilege separation, and reserving elevated privileges for only the minimum portion of the code necessary.  The Windows "automatically throw up a GUI when you get a permission denied" design has a significant risk of creating user indifference towards important security notifications, which results in a significantly less secure system in the long run.</p><p>Also, I'm under the impression (based on the patent) that Windows is temporarily elevating the privileges of the application itself, which means that you now have a much larger chunk of code that must be checked for security holes, lest malicious individuals co-opt the application for nefarious purposes.  Such a design also makes it very hard to adequately use code signing to ensure the authenticity of the code running with elevated privileges, thus allowing security holes in the app to readily be exploited and turned into the equivalent of root holes just by the user clicking "Allow".</p><p>In short, it's a terrible security design filled with myriad fundamental design flaws, all codified in a patent filing for all to mock.  I certainly won't lose sleep over this patent getting approved.  No one should reasonably want to implement the sort of security architecture that would violate this patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This patent was filed more than four years ago , in April of 2005 .
This filing predates Red Hat 's announcement of PolicyKit by about a year .
And PolicyKit probably would n't cover this even if it predated the Microsoft concept because it does n't meet the " automatic " criteria , AFAIK.And for anyone thinking that this is a patent on sudo , it is not .
It also is not a patent on Apple 's AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges , though it is much closer to that .
It differs from the Mac OS X design in that it : Executes when the privilege violation occurs without requiring the app to be aware .
This is , of course , a really dangerous idea for reasons I 'll get into momentarily.Displays a list of accounts with the appropriate privilege .
This is arguably not that useful on most OSes , but it is important if you have a rights system that is way too complicated....It further differs from sudo in that it presents a GUI ( in addition to the two ways above ) .Regarding launching a GUI window when a privilege violation occurs , this is precisely why Windows got the " Allow or Deny " reputation it got .
You really do n't want to authorize every little action .
Further , when it comes to a typical desktop environment , a rights system should not be so complex that there are more than about two classes of users anyway---those who have the rights to modify system files and those who are limited to their own files .
Therefore , something like sudo , PolicyKit , AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges , etc .
is generally a much better design because it puts the application in control of the experience and allows you to run a series of actions with elevated privileges , forcing apps to be designed with proper privilege separation , and reserving elevated privileges for only the minimum portion of the code necessary .
The Windows " automatically throw up a GUI when you get a permission denied " design has a significant risk of creating user indifference towards important security notifications , which results in a significantly less secure system in the long run.Also , I 'm under the impression ( based on the patent ) that Windows is temporarily elevating the privileges of the application itself , which means that you now have a much larger chunk of code that must be checked for security holes , lest malicious individuals co-opt the application for nefarious purposes .
Such a design also makes it very hard to adequately use code signing to ensure the authenticity of the code running with elevated privileges , thus allowing security holes in the app to readily be exploited and turned into the equivalent of root holes just by the user clicking " Allow " .In short , it 's a terrible security design filled with myriad fundamental design flaws , all codified in a patent filing for all to mock .
I certainly wo n't lose sleep over this patent getting approved .
No one should reasonably want to implement the sort of security architecture that would violate this patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This patent was filed more than four years ago, in April of 2005.
This filing predates Red Hat's announcement of PolicyKit by about a year.
And PolicyKit probably wouldn't cover this even if it predated the Microsoft concept because it doesn't meet the "automatic" criteria, AFAIK.And for anyone thinking that this is a patent on sudo, it is not.
It also is not a patent on Apple's AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges, though it is much closer to that.
It differs from the Mac OS X design in that it:
Executes when the privilege violation occurs without requiring the app to be aware.
This is, of course, a really dangerous idea for reasons I'll get into momentarily.Displays a list of accounts with the appropriate privilege.
This is arguably not that useful on most OSes, but it is important if you have a rights system that is way too complicated....It further differs from sudo in that it presents a GUI (in addition to the two ways above).Regarding launching a GUI window when a privilege violation occurs, this is precisely why Windows got the "Allow or Deny" reputation it got.
You really don't want to authorize every little action.
Further, when it comes to a typical desktop environment, a rights system should not be so complex that there are more than about two classes of users anyway---those who have the rights to modify system files and those who are limited to their own files.
Therefore, something like sudo, PolicyKit, AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges, etc.
is generally a much better design because it puts the application in control of the experience and allows you to run a series of actions with elevated privileges, forcing apps to be designed with proper privilege separation, and reserving elevated privileges for only the minimum portion of the code necessary.
The Windows "automatically throw up a GUI when you get a permission denied" design has a significant risk of creating user indifference towards important security notifications, which results in a significantly less secure system in the long run.Also, I'm under the impression (based on the patent) that Windows is temporarily elevating the privileges of the application itself, which means that you now have a much larger chunk of code that must be checked for security holes, lest malicious individuals co-opt the application for nefarious purposes.
Such a design also makes it very hard to adequately use code signing to ensure the authenticity of the code running with elevated privileges, thus allowing security holes in the app to readily be exploited and turned into the equivalent of root holes just by the user clicking "Allow".In short, it's a terrible security design filled with myriad fundamental design flaws, all codified in a patent filing for all to mock.
I certainly won't lose sleep over this patent getting approved.
No one should reasonably want to implement the sort of security architecture that would violate this patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070772</id>
	<title>Re:This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, yes, it is exactly like PolicyKit. It shows all users that have the necessary privileges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , yes , it is exactly like PolicyKit .
It shows all users that have the necessary privileges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, yes, it is exactly like PolicyKit.
It shows all users that have the necessary privileges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066648</id>
	<title>Food</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1257074520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Operating systems for gourmets: Linux make <a href="http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Coffee.html" title="tldp.org">coffee</a> [tldp.org], and now Windows make <a href="http://xkcd.com/149/" title="xkcd.com">sandwichs</a> [xkcd.com] (not sure what makes OS/X, but it Cocoa flavored)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Operating systems for gourmets : Linux make coffee [ tldp.org ] , and now Windows make sandwichs [ xkcd.com ] ( not sure what makes OS/X , but it Cocoa flavored )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Operating systems for gourmets: Linux make coffee [tldp.org], and now Windows make sandwichs [xkcd.com] (not sure what makes OS/X, but it Cocoa flavored)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30071054</id>
	<title>I created Sudo for Windows in 2005</title>
	<author>akutz</author>
	<datestamp>1258029660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I created Sudo for Windows (sudowin) in 2005. It is a free, open source project available at <a href="http://sudowin.sf.net/" title="sf.net" rel="nofollow">http://sudowin.sf.net/</a> [sf.net].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I created Sudo for Windows ( sudowin ) in 2005 .
It is a free , open source project available at http : //sudowin.sf.net/ [ sf.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I created Sudo for Windows (sudowin) in 2005.
It is a free, open source project available at http://sudowin.sf.net/ [sf.net].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067104</id>
	<title>Re:This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1257076980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's not like PolicyKit either.  You apparently have no idea what the patent is describing.  Let me help you.  If you want to do something on your computer, but you don't have the rights, and your account does not have rights elevation privileges, the system described in this patent will show you an account that does have access, and you can type in the password for that account to get the job done.  As far as I know, sudo, gksudo, and PolicyKit do not do this.
<br> <br>
Everyone's getting caught up in the privilege escalation part and missing that the whole point of the patent is that it allows you use the rights of a <i>different</i> user to perform an action, and it shows you that user instead of you having to type in a name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not like PolicyKit either .
You apparently have no idea what the patent is describing .
Let me help you .
If you want to do something on your computer , but you do n't have the rights , and your account does not have rights elevation privileges , the system described in this patent will show you an account that does have access , and you can type in the password for that account to get the job done .
As far as I know , sudo , gksudo , and PolicyKit do not do this .
Everyone 's getting caught up in the privilege escalation part and missing that the whole point of the patent is that it allows you use the rights of a different user to perform an action , and it shows you that user instead of you having to type in a name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's not like PolicyKit either.
You apparently have no idea what the patent is describing.
Let me help you.
If you want to do something on your computer, but you don't have the rights, and your account does not have rights elevation privileges, the system described in this patent will show you an account that does have access, and you can type in the password for that account to get the job done.
As far as I know, sudo, gksudo, and PolicyKit do not do this.
Everyone's getting caught up in the privilege escalation part and missing that the whole point of the patent is that it allows you use the rights of a different user to perform an action, and it shows you that user instead of you having to type in a name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30120492</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>PenisLands</author>
	<datestamp>1258405140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about when Microsoft threatened that Linux infringed on MS intellectual property? That's trolling if I ever saw it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about when Microsoft threatened that Linux infringed on MS intellectual property ?
That 's trolling if I ever saw it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about when Microsoft threatened that Linux infringed on MS intellectual property?
That's trolling if I ever saw it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066464</id>
	<title>Re:So what, they can have it.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257073740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; sudo is shit. What is the point anyway ? Either you've got root, or you<br>&gt; assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.</p><p>Wrong.</p><p>man sudo<br>man sudoers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; sudo is shit .
What is the point anyway ?
Either you 've got root , or you &gt; assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.Wrong.man sudoman sudoers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; sudo is shit.
What is the point anyway ?
Either you've got root, or you&gt; assume it with sudo and have exactly the same privileges.Wrong.man sudoman sudoers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069898</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1257103560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Further: how quickly we forget the threat of those <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/05/14/0018242.shtml" title="slashdot.org">235 patents</a> [slashdot.org]. If that's not patent trolling, what is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further : how quickly we forget the threat of those 235 patents [ slashdot.org ] .
If that 's not patent trolling , what is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further: how quickly we forget the threat of those 235 patents [slashdot.org].
If that's not patent trolling, what is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069124</id>
	<title>Re:This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1257093420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can imagine Microsoft engineers asking the same question and concluding that people think sudo is a good thing, so automatic user friendly sudo everywhere is by extension a good thing.</i></p><p>I suspect it was more an effort to make programs that assume admin rights (of which we all know there are tons) less obnoxious. I mean, that'd really suck to work with a program for 10 minutes, go to do something, and have the operation denied because you didn't <i>start</i> it with sudo. That's the sort of thing that would cause all but the very very most security-focused people (i.e. not me) to turn off UAC.</p><p>(After all, Windows NT has had the ability to start programs as other users (like su) for a long time now; that particular ability isn't new. It's only the on-demand escalation that is.)</p><p><i>Knowing when to use something less powerful instead of sudo is an important, pervasive, and ongoing conscious part of the "Linux sudo model." That's how it's different.</i></p><p>I still don't particularly buy the differences you state though, or at least buy that it's a particularly useful tradeoff.</p><p>First of all, there's definitely a security-vs-usability tradeoff here. If xsane fails with a permission denied error, the user has to go and investigate how to set up things right, then do it. Even if the permission denied dialog itself gave instructions, users don't really read them. (Though in <i>that</i> extreme, I start to lose empathy.) Compare that to the UAC world, where you get a popup that you have to clear to continue. Lose a little security, but gain quite a bit of convenience. (Especially if it's something you do infrequently. If you do it often, then setting things up right with the Unix model will mean it works smoothly, while you'll still get a UAC prompt each time with the Windows model.)</p><p>Now note that even the security increase in the Unix model isn't absolute. How do you set it up to get the necessary permissions? You add yourself to the 'scanner' group or whatever to get permissions to the necessary device nodes. Okay, in the case of the scanner, this is not a big deal, but what this means is that if you trust a particular program more than you trust other programs you run from having access to a resource, then you should run that program as root. This fact shouldn't be a surprise; it's basically why we need sudo in the first place.</p><p>But my contention is that the set of programs that fit the "asks for UAC rights on Windows but would be better satisfied by more granular permission changes" (like xsane) is very small, and that almost everything that asks for UAC elevation falls into the "run this program as sudo" category. Certainly my anecdotal "feeling" supports this contention, but I also did a slightly more careful experiment when I first switched to Vista. The result of it was that almost every elevation request I got for a month (I kept a log) was for some action where the equivalent on Linux would have required sudo rights anyway. The main exceptions were (1) changing environment variables (in Vista the terrible dialog where you change user-local and system-wide variables is the same, and MS didn't go out of their way to make it possible to change user-local ones) and (2) this one crappy hardware monitoring software I was using for some reason.</p><p>Basically everything else was like system config changes that would have required root on Linux or program installations, which also require root on Linux. (Well, okay, you can usually do configure/make/make install without root. But only then if you're really masochistic, because that drops you back to the hell of resolving dependencies that made Linux a PITA to use before package managers. Virtually none of the package managers out there work without root.)</p><p>So theoretically speaking... I can buy your argument. Practically speaking, I think it makes basically no difference whatsoever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine Microsoft engineers asking the same question and concluding that people think sudo is a good thing , so automatic user friendly sudo everywhere is by extension a good thing.I suspect it was more an effort to make programs that assume admin rights ( of which we all know there are tons ) less obnoxious .
I mean , that 'd really suck to work with a program for 10 minutes , go to do something , and have the operation denied because you did n't start it with sudo .
That 's the sort of thing that would cause all but the very very most security-focused people ( i.e .
not me ) to turn off UAC .
( After all , Windows NT has had the ability to start programs as other users ( like su ) for a long time now ; that particular ability is n't new .
It 's only the on-demand escalation that is .
) Knowing when to use something less powerful instead of sudo is an important , pervasive , and ongoing conscious part of the " Linux sudo model .
" That 's how it 's different.I still do n't particularly buy the differences you state though , or at least buy that it 's a particularly useful tradeoff.First of all , there 's definitely a security-vs-usability tradeoff here .
If xsane fails with a permission denied error , the user has to go and investigate how to set up things right , then do it .
Even if the permission denied dialog itself gave instructions , users do n't really read them .
( Though in that extreme , I start to lose empathy .
) Compare that to the UAC world , where you get a popup that you have to clear to continue .
Lose a little security , but gain quite a bit of convenience .
( Especially if it 's something you do infrequently .
If you do it often , then setting things up right with the Unix model will mean it works smoothly , while you 'll still get a UAC prompt each time with the Windows model .
) Now note that even the security increase in the Unix model is n't absolute .
How do you set it up to get the necessary permissions ?
You add yourself to the 'scanner ' group or whatever to get permissions to the necessary device nodes .
Okay , in the case of the scanner , this is not a big deal , but what this means is that if you trust a particular program more than you trust other programs you run from having access to a resource , then you should run that program as root .
This fact should n't be a surprise ; it 's basically why we need sudo in the first place.But my contention is that the set of programs that fit the " asks for UAC rights on Windows but would be better satisfied by more granular permission changes " ( like xsane ) is very small , and that almost everything that asks for UAC elevation falls into the " run this program as sudo " category .
Certainly my anecdotal " feeling " supports this contention , but I also did a slightly more careful experiment when I first switched to Vista .
The result of it was that almost every elevation request I got for a month ( I kept a log ) was for some action where the equivalent on Linux would have required sudo rights anyway .
The main exceptions were ( 1 ) changing environment variables ( in Vista the terrible dialog where you change user-local and system-wide variables is the same , and MS did n't go out of their way to make it possible to change user-local ones ) and ( 2 ) this one crappy hardware monitoring software I was using for some reason.Basically everything else was like system config changes that would have required root on Linux or program installations , which also require root on Linux .
( Well , okay , you can usually do configure/make/make install without root .
But only then if you 're really masochistic , because that drops you back to the hell of resolving dependencies that made Linux a PITA to use before package managers .
Virtually none of the package managers out there work without root .
) So theoretically speaking... I can buy your argument .
Practically speaking , I think it makes basically no difference whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine Microsoft engineers asking the same question and concluding that people think sudo is a good thing, so automatic user friendly sudo everywhere is by extension a good thing.I suspect it was more an effort to make programs that assume admin rights (of which we all know there are tons) less obnoxious.
I mean, that'd really suck to work with a program for 10 minutes, go to do something, and have the operation denied because you didn't start it with sudo.
That's the sort of thing that would cause all but the very very most security-focused people (i.e.
not me) to turn off UAC.
(After all, Windows NT has had the ability to start programs as other users (like su) for a long time now; that particular ability isn't new.
It's only the on-demand escalation that is.
)Knowing when to use something less powerful instead of sudo is an important, pervasive, and ongoing conscious part of the "Linux sudo model.
" That's how it's different.I still don't particularly buy the differences you state though, or at least buy that it's a particularly useful tradeoff.First of all, there's definitely a security-vs-usability tradeoff here.
If xsane fails with a permission denied error, the user has to go and investigate how to set up things right, then do it.
Even if the permission denied dialog itself gave instructions, users don't really read them.
(Though in that extreme, I start to lose empathy.
) Compare that to the UAC world, where you get a popup that you have to clear to continue.
Lose a little security, but gain quite a bit of convenience.
(Especially if it's something you do infrequently.
If you do it often, then setting things up right with the Unix model will mean it works smoothly, while you'll still get a UAC prompt each time with the Windows model.
)Now note that even the security increase in the Unix model isn't absolute.
How do you set it up to get the necessary permissions?
You add yourself to the 'scanner' group or whatever to get permissions to the necessary device nodes.
Okay, in the case of the scanner, this is not a big deal, but what this means is that if you trust a particular program more than you trust other programs you run from having access to a resource, then you should run that program as root.
This fact shouldn't be a surprise; it's basically why we need sudo in the first place.But my contention is that the set of programs that fit the "asks for UAC rights on Windows but would be better satisfied by more granular permission changes" (like xsane) is very small, and that almost everything that asks for UAC elevation falls into the "run this program as sudo" category.
Certainly my anecdotal "feeling" supports this contention, but I also did a slightly more careful experiment when I first switched to Vista.
The result of it was that almost every elevation request I got for a month (I kept a log) was for some action where the equivalent on Linux would have required sudo rights anyway.
The main exceptions were (1) changing environment variables (in Vista the terrible dialog where you change user-local and system-wide variables is the same, and MS didn't go out of their way to make it possible to change user-local ones) and (2) this one crappy hardware monitoring software I was using for some reason.Basically everything else was like system config changes that would have required root on Linux or program installations, which also require root on Linux.
(Well, okay, you can usually do configure/make/make install without root.
But only then if you're really masochistic, because that drops you back to the hell of resolving dependencies that made Linux a PITA to use before package managers.
Virtually none of the package managers out there work without root.
)So theoretically speaking... I can buy your argument.
Practically speaking, I think it makes basically no difference whatsoever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066498</id>
	<title>POLICY KIT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/" title="freedesktop.org" rel="nofollow">http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/</a> [freedesktop.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/ [ freedesktop.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/ [freedesktop.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066798</id>
	<title>Re:Thought all was safe on the crazy patent front?</title>
	<author>Foofoobar</author>
	<datestamp>1257075420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does your mother count as a rock?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does your mother count as a rock ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does your mother count as a rock?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067962</id>
	<title>Multiple issues getting mixed up here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257082860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are multiple issues getting mixed up in the Groklaw article and the discussion on Slashdot.</p><p>A patent application has three hoops to jump through to be patentable:</p><p>35 U.S.C. 101 - the claims must be patentable subject matter.  The question of "is software patentable" is what the Supreme Court is deciding in In Re Bilski.  This is the largest issue most of the Slashdot community seems concerned about, and it's obviously a big issue right now.  These claims, as written, may be patentable subject matter under current 101 criteria.  This is why there were written with all the "computer readable media" language.</p><p>35 U.S.C. 102 - the claims must be "novel" subject matter.  This is what people object to when they yell "BUT I DID THIS BACK IN 1990!"</p><p>35 U.S.C. 103 - the claims must be non-obvious subject matter. This is what most people appear to be objecting to in the present discussion....if sudo existed before this patent, then laying down Microsoft's GUI idea on top may be obvious.  (This is NOT a Section 102 issue).  This is the part where the patent office (and examiner) screwed up.  Even if the examiner couldn't find a reference that taught exactly what Microsoft claimed, he/she should have at least rejected the now-issued claims as obvious.  Maybe he did, but half-assed  the rejection...who knows.</p><p>The Groklaw article points out an "obvious" patent and yells that is shouldn't be patentable subject matter.  Those are two separate issues. Yes, it's probably obvious.  Depending on your view of software patents, it should or should not be patentable subject matter. That fact that it's an "obvious" idea will NOT in any way be affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski (that case is about patentable subject matter under Section 101).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are multiple issues getting mixed up in the Groklaw article and the discussion on Slashdot.A patent application has three hoops to jump through to be patentable : 35 U.S.C .
101 - the claims must be patentable subject matter .
The question of " is software patentable " is what the Supreme Court is deciding in In Re Bilski .
This is the largest issue most of the Slashdot community seems concerned about , and it 's obviously a big issue right now .
These claims , as written , may be patentable subject matter under current 101 criteria .
This is why there were written with all the " computer readable media " language.35 U.S.C .
102 - the claims must be " novel " subject matter .
This is what people object to when they yell " BUT I DID THIS BACK IN 1990 !
" 35 U.S.C .
103 - the claims must be non-obvious subject matter .
This is what most people appear to be objecting to in the present discussion....if sudo existed before this patent , then laying down Microsoft 's GUI idea on top may be obvious .
( This is NOT a Section 102 issue ) .
This is the part where the patent office ( and examiner ) screwed up .
Even if the examiner could n't find a reference that taught exactly what Microsoft claimed , he/she should have at least rejected the now-issued claims as obvious .
Maybe he did , but half-assed the rejection...who knows.The Groklaw article points out an " obvious " patent and yells that is should n't be patentable subject matter .
Those are two separate issues .
Yes , it 's probably obvious .
Depending on your view of software patents , it should or should not be patentable subject matter .
That fact that it 's an " obvious " idea will NOT in any way be affected by the Supreme Court 's decision in Bilski ( that case is about patentable subject matter under Section 101 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are multiple issues getting mixed up in the Groklaw article and the discussion on Slashdot.A patent application has three hoops to jump through to be patentable:35 U.S.C.
101 - the claims must be patentable subject matter.
The question of "is software patentable" is what the Supreme Court is deciding in In Re Bilski.
This is the largest issue most of the Slashdot community seems concerned about, and it's obviously a big issue right now.
These claims, as written, may be patentable subject matter under current 101 criteria.
This is why there were written with all the "computer readable media" language.35 U.S.C.
102 - the claims must be "novel" subject matter.
This is what people object to when they yell "BUT I DID THIS BACK IN 1990!
"35 U.S.C.
103 - the claims must be non-obvious subject matter.
This is what most people appear to be objecting to in the present discussion....if sudo existed before this patent, then laying down Microsoft's GUI idea on top may be obvious.
(This is NOT a Section 102 issue).
This is the part where the patent office (and examiner) screwed up.
Even if the examiner couldn't find a reference that taught exactly what Microsoft claimed, he/she should have at least rejected the now-issued claims as obvious.
Maybe he did, but half-assed  the rejection...who knows.The Groklaw article points out an "obvious" patent and yells that is shouldn't be patentable subject matter.
Those are two separate issues.
Yes, it's probably obvious.
Depending on your view of software patents, it should or should not be patentable subject matter.
That fact that it's an "obvious" idea will NOT in any way be affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski (that case is about patentable subject matter under Section 101).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069970</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257105240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task,</i></p><p>When I try something on my Mac that needs an admin to do but a regular user is logged in a window pops up asking for an admin's password that has the rights.  If a password isn't typed in it won't do it.  However the MS patent application says it presents "an account having a right to permit".  My Mac doesn't do that though, so maybe it's novel enough.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in response to a task being prohibited based on a user 's current account not having a right to permit the task,When I try something on my Mac that needs an admin to do but a regular user is logged in a window pops up asking for an admin 's password that has the rights .
If a password is n't typed in it wo n't do it .
However the MS patent application says it presents " an account having a right to permit " .
My Mac does n't do that though , so maybe it 's novel enough .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task,When I try something on my Mac that needs an admin to do but a regular user is logged in a window pops up asking for an admin's password that has the rights.
If a password isn't typed in it won't do it.
However the MS patent application says it presents "an account having a right to permit".
My Mac doesn't do that though, so maybe it's novel enough.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070520</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1258021560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>O really?
<br>
Like A disk with a program that checks if you have permission to do a task and presents a prompt to escalate the permissions if required?<br>
You haven't got a clue. Fini indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>O really ?
Like A disk with a program that checks if you have permission to do a task and presents a prompt to escalate the permissions if required ?
You have n't got a clue .
Fini indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>O really?
Like A disk with a program that checks if you have permission to do a task and presents a prompt to escalate the permissions if required?
You haven't got a clue.
Fini indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066392</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the alarmist headlines already</title>
	<author>reebmmm</author>
	<datestamp>1257073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true. This is an ISSUED patent; see the patent number: 7,617,530. You can also check its status in public pair (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair):<br>10-21-2009        ISSUE.NTF        Issue Notification       1<br>10-01-2009     IFEE     Issue Fee Payment (PTO-85B)     1<br>10-01-2009     LET.     Miscellaneous Incoming Letter     1<br>10-01-2009     WFEE     Fee Worksheet (PTO-875)     2<br>10-01-2009     N417     EFS Acknowledgment Receipt     2<br>08-24-2009     NOA     Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)     10</p><p>I'll draw your attention to the first and last lines in the excerpt from the file wrapper.</p><p>That said, the claims DO NOT cover sudo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true .
This is an ISSUED patent ; see the patent number : 7,617,530 .
You can also check its status in public pair ( http : //portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair ) : 10-21-2009 ISSUE.NTF Issue Notification 110-01-2009 IFEE Issue Fee Payment ( PTO-85B ) 110-01-2009 LET .
Miscellaneous Incoming Letter 110-01-2009 WFEE Fee Worksheet ( PTO-875 ) 210-01-2009 N417 EFS Acknowledgment Receipt 208-24-2009 NOA Notice of Allowance and Fees Due ( PTOL-85 ) 10I 'll draw your attention to the first and last lines in the excerpt from the file wrapper.That said , the claims DO NOT cover sudo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true.
This is an ISSUED patent; see the patent number: 7,617,530.
You can also check its status in public pair (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair):10-21-2009        ISSUE.NTF        Issue Notification       110-01-2009     IFEE     Issue Fee Payment (PTO-85B)     110-01-2009     LET.
Miscellaneous Incoming Letter     110-01-2009     WFEE     Fee Worksheet (PTO-875)     210-01-2009     N417     EFS Acknowledgment Receipt     208-24-2009     NOA     Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)     10I'll draw your attention to the first and last lines in the excerpt from the file wrapper.That said, the claims DO NOT cover sudo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067270</id>
	<title>In fairness to Microsoft .....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they did disclose sudo as art to the examiner during prosecution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they did disclose sudo as art to the examiner during prosecution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they did disclose sudo as art to the examiner during prosecution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068204</id>
	<title>Adding Fuel to the Fire...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surprised haven't seen this mentioned yet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... look at the file date (2005).  This likely was submitted during Vista's development:<br>"Cancel or Allow"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprised have n't seen this mentioned yet ... look at the file date ( 2005 ) .
This likely was submitted during Vista 's development : " Cancel or Allow " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprised haven't seen this mentioned yet ... look at the file date (2005).
This likely was submitted during Vista's development:"Cancel or Allow"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070452</id>
	<title>We keep hearing this meme</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258020480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We keep hearing this meme and it's as wrong now as it's ever been.</p><p>MS trolled 238 patents against Linux.</p><p>No court case.</p><p>Just FUD.</p><p>Still trolling patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We keep hearing this meme and it 's as wrong now as it 's ever been.MS trolled 238 patents against Linux.No court case.Just FUD.Still trolling patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We keep hearing this meme and it's as wrong now as it's ever been.MS trolled 238 patents against Linux.No court case.Just FUD.Still trolling patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978</id>
	<title>Penalties</title>
	<author>alain94040</author>
	<datestamp>1257071880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't condemn all software patents. Just because it's software doesn't mean that it can't be brilliant and stunningly innovative.</p><p>But sudo with a GUI? A quick fix I'd suggest to get rid of those bogus patents is to have a rule that says that if a patent is proven obvious later on, then the company (Microsoft in that case) would lose all their patents for the year. That would make them think twice before filing junk...</p><p>---<br>the <a href="http://www.meetup.com/Co-Founders-Wanted-Meetup/" title="meetup.com" rel="nofollow">Co-FoundersMeetup</a> [meetup.com] in Mountain View is next week</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't condemn all software patents .
Just because it 's software does n't mean that it ca n't be brilliant and stunningly innovative.But sudo with a GUI ?
A quick fix I 'd suggest to get rid of those bogus patents is to have a rule that says that if a patent is proven obvious later on , then the company ( Microsoft in that case ) would lose all their patents for the year .
That would make them think twice before filing junk...---the Co-FoundersMeetup [ meetup.com ] in Mountain View is next week</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't condemn all software patents.
Just because it's software doesn't mean that it can't be brilliant and stunningly innovative.But sudo with a GUI?
A quick fix I'd suggest to get rid of those bogus patents is to have a rule that says that if a patent is proven obvious later on, then the company (Microsoft in that case) would lose all their patents for the year.
That would make them think twice before filing junk...---the Co-FoundersMeetup [meetup.com] in Mountain View is next week</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30076978</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>umdenken</author>
	<datestamp>1258056600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...I haven't ever seen MS patent trolling, they've even gave their patents to organizations which purpose is to keep them open...</p></div><p>I'm not buying it.  I know personally that Microsoft keeps patents as an arsenal for negotiations with small companies.  I.e., if you continue such-and-such development, we'll challenge every patent you've got; we'll get some of them thrown out, and bankrupt you in the process.

(I'm a 3rd year law student; one of my best friends is a patent agent in a firm that represents MS and tells me these stories about "business as usual".)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I have n't ever seen MS patent trolling , they 've even gave their patents to organizations which purpose is to keep them open...I 'm not buying it .
I know personally that Microsoft keeps patents as an arsenal for negotiations with small companies .
I.e. , if you continue such-and-such development , we 'll challenge every patent you 've got ; we 'll get some of them thrown out , and bankrupt you in the process .
( I 'm a 3rd year law student ; one of my best friends is a patent agent in a firm that represents MS and tells me these stories about " business as usual " .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I haven't ever seen MS patent trolling, they've even gave their patents to organizations which purpose is to keep them open...I'm not buying it.
I know personally that Microsoft keeps patents as an arsenal for negotiations with small companies.
I.e., if you continue such-and-such development, we'll challenge every patent you've got; we'll get some of them thrown out, and bankrupt you in the process.
(I'm a 3rd year law student; one of my best friends is a patent agent in a firm that represents MS and tells me these stories about "business as usual".
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066908</id>
	<title>Re:Penalties</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1257075960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And actually I haven't ever seen MS patent trolling,</p> </div><p>Their shakedown of camera vendors and threats to OS implementors over the VFAT patents are a classic case of patent trolling.</p><p>The technology covered by the patents no longer has any intrinsic value, because nobody uses OSes that don't support long filenames. The <b>only</b> reason to use the long/short filename conversion in VFAT is purely circular: to ensure compatibility with VFAT itself.</p><p>Thus, these patents only remaining purpose in life is to create a barrier to entry in the markets that Microsoft operates in. The technology covered by them is is providing no end-user benefit, and consumers are paying royalties and getting nothing in return other than a less competitive market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And actually I have n't ever seen MS patent trolling , Their shakedown of camera vendors and threats to OS implementors over the VFAT patents are a classic case of patent trolling.The technology covered by the patents no longer has any intrinsic value , because nobody uses OSes that do n't support long filenames .
The only reason to use the long/short filename conversion in VFAT is purely circular : to ensure compatibility with VFAT itself.Thus , these patents only remaining purpose in life is to create a barrier to entry in the markets that Microsoft operates in .
The technology covered by them is is providing no end-user benefit , and consumers are paying royalties and getting nothing in return other than a less competitive market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And actually I haven't ever seen MS patent trolling, Their shakedown of camera vendors and threats to OS implementors over the VFAT patents are a classic case of patent trolling.The technology covered by the patents no longer has any intrinsic value, because nobody uses OSes that don't support long filenames.
The only reason to use the long/short filename conversion in VFAT is purely circular: to ensure compatibility with VFAT itself.Thus, these patents only remaining purpose in life is to create a barrier to entry in the markets that Microsoft operates in.
The technology covered by them is is providing no end-user benefit, and consumers are paying royalties and getting nothing in return other than a less competitive market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067814</id>
	<title>Prior Art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has been on unices not quite forever, but you can see it from there.  Prior Art baby.  If they try to press this at all, it will flop like a house of cards.  Is this '48 patents'?  If the others are like this one, they have nothing, but some strange desire to fund the US patent office by getting patents that obviously cannot hold water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been on unices not quite forever , but you can see it from there .
Prior Art baby .
If they try to press this at all , it will flop like a house of cards .
Is this '48 patents ' ?
If the others are like this one , they have nothing , but some strange desire to fund the US patent office by getting patents that obviously can not hold water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been on unices not quite forever, but you can see it from there.
Prior Art baby.
If they try to press this at all, it will flop like a house of cards.
Is this '48 patents'?
If the others are like this one, they have nothing, but some strange desire to fund the US patent office by getting patents that obviously cannot hold water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066978</id>
	<title>Get it dumbshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, that's a *furore*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that 's a * furore * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that's a *furore*.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067210</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>KarmaMB84</author>
	<datestamp>1257077700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The information on Groklaw has been prepared as a service to the FOSS community in particular and the general public. It is not intended to constitute legal advice. PJ is a paralegal, not a lawyer. Even when lawyers write or contribute to articles, it is still not legal advice.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The information on Groklaw has been prepared as a service to the FOSS community in particular and the general public .
It is not intended to constitute legal advice .
PJ is a paralegal , not a lawyer .
Even when lawyers write or contribute to articles , it is still not legal advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The information on Groklaw has been prepared as a service to the FOSS community in particular and the general public.
It is not intended to constitute legal advice.
PJ is a paralegal, not a lawyer.
Even when lawyers write or contribute to articles, it is still not legal advice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066080</id>
	<title>Using a *NIX desktop would suck...</title>
	<author>stakovahflow</author>
	<datestamp>1257072240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>without "sudo". My thanks to Micro$oft for inventing that great program!

--Stak</htmltext>
<tokenext>without " sudo " .
My thanks to Micro $ oft for inventing that great program !
--Stak</tokentext>
<sentencetext>without "sudo".
My thanks to Micro$oft for inventing that great program!
--Stak</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068722</id>
	<title>They didn't patent sudo.</title>
	<author>Eric Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1257089460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not a single claim of this patent would be applicable to sudo.  The independent claims 1, 2, and 9 don't apply to sudo, because they describe significant behavior that is not part of sudo.  By extension, none of the dependent claims can apply to sudo either.
<p>
You can still argue over whether it meets the obviousness criterion, but trying to spin this a "Microsoft patents sudo" is deliberately spreading FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a single claim of this patent would be applicable to sudo .
The independent claims 1 , 2 , and 9 do n't apply to sudo , because they describe significant behavior that is not part of sudo .
By extension , none of the dependent claims can apply to sudo either .
You can still argue over whether it meets the obviousness criterion , but trying to spin this a " Microsoft patents sudo " is deliberately spreading FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a single claim of this patent would be applicable to sudo.
The independent claims 1, 2, and 9 don't apply to sudo, because they describe significant behavior that is not part of sudo.
By extension, none of the dependent claims can apply to sudo either.
You can still argue over whether it meets the obviousness criterion, but trying to spin this a "Microsoft patents sudo" is deliberately spreading FUD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066354</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1257073320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task</p></div><p>macos x does this</p><p>gksudo does this</p><p>This patent covers material which has been present in linux and macos X and is part of the evolving function of sudo. Fini.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user 's current account not having a right to permit the taskmacos x does thisgksudo does thisThis patent covers material which has been present in linux and macos X and is part of the evolving function of sudo .
Fini .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the taskmacos x does thisgksudo does thisThis patent covers material which has been present in linux and macos X and is part of the evolving function of sudo.
Fini.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30080898</id>
	<title>Re:This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>kbielefe</author>
	<datestamp>1258027560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>one could reasonably ask why xsane should need elevated privileges</p></div><p>It's not really <em>elevated</em> privileges as much as <em>specific</em> privileges.  It's very simple to set up a user who can scan images, but not install software, for example.  It just happens that elevating your privileges using sudo is the easiest way to grant all the specific privileges.</p><p>At any rate, scanner use in Linux is mostly as you describe, with most normal users having non-admin access to them by default.  I believe the exceptions are generally in the hardware that isn't identified automatically as a scanner, for whatever reason.</p><p>You're looking at it from the point of view of "what's the point of limiting access to a scanner?"  That misses the big picture.  The Linux/Unix way is first to set safe defaults for <em>all</em> devices, and then to carve out narrow exceptions.  When the security policy fails, we want it to fail safe.  In other words, access isn't being denied because scanner access is necessarily a security hazard, but because access to devices in general is.  It's a deliberate trade off of ease of installation for security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>one could reasonably ask why xsane should need elevated privilegesIt 's not really elevated privileges as much as specific privileges .
It 's very simple to set up a user who can scan images , but not install software , for example .
It just happens that elevating your privileges using sudo is the easiest way to grant all the specific privileges.At any rate , scanner use in Linux is mostly as you describe , with most normal users having non-admin access to them by default .
I believe the exceptions are generally in the hardware that is n't identified automatically as a scanner , for whatever reason.You 're looking at it from the point of view of " what 's the point of limiting access to a scanner ?
" That misses the big picture .
The Linux/Unix way is first to set safe defaults for all devices , and then to carve out narrow exceptions .
When the security policy fails , we want it to fail safe .
In other words , access is n't being denied because scanner access is necessarily a security hazard , but because access to devices in general is .
It 's a deliberate trade off of ease of installation for security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one could reasonably ask why xsane should need elevated privilegesIt's not really elevated privileges as much as specific privileges.
It's very simple to set up a user who can scan images, but not install software, for example.
It just happens that elevating your privileges using sudo is the easiest way to grant all the specific privileges.At any rate, scanner use in Linux is mostly as you describe, with most normal users having non-admin access to them by default.
I believe the exceptions are generally in the hardware that isn't identified automatically as a scanner, for whatever reason.You're looking at it from the point of view of "what's the point of limiting access to a scanner?
"  That misses the big picture.
The Linux/Unix way is first to set safe defaults for all devices, and then to carve out narrow exceptions.
When the security policy fails, we want it to fail safe.
In other words, access isn't being denied because scanner access is necessarily a security hazard, but because access to devices in general is.
It's a deliberate trade off of ease of installation for security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30080184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30085728</id>
	<title>Re:Stop with the alarmist headlines already</title>
	<author>True Grit</author>
	<datestamp>1258121820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know Slashdot loves to exaggerate things in headlines, but this is absurd.</p></div><p>No sir, this is not absurd... this *is* Slashdot!</p><p>I'd guess the editors consider any TFA that generates 600+ posts to be a "good day's work", irrespective of the presence or absence of exaggeration and/or absurdity, *especially* if they don't have to invent the absurdity themselves, but merely link to it...</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know Slashdot loves to exaggerate things in headlines , but this is absurd.No sir , this is not absurd... this * is * Slashdot ! I 'd guess the editors consider any TFA that generates 600 + posts to be a " good day 's work " , irrespective of the presence or absence of exaggeration and/or absurdity , * especially * if they do n't have to invent the absurdity themselves , but merely link to it... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know Slashdot loves to exaggerate things in headlines, but this is absurd.No sir, this is not absurd... this *is* Slashdot!I'd guess the editors consider any TFA that generates 600+ posts to be a "good day's work", irrespective of the presence or absence of exaggeration and/or absurdity, *especially* if they don't have to invent the absurdity themselves, but merely link to it... :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066718</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to consider the claim in its entirety:   they claim telling the user what alternative accounts are permitted to perform the operation that is not permitted to the current account. That is not present in su, sudo ksudo etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to consider the claim in its entirety : they claim telling the user what alternative accounts are permitted to perform the operation that is not permitted to the current account .
That is not present in su , sudo ksudo etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to consider the claim in its entirety:   they claim telling the user what alternative accounts are permitted to perform the operation that is not permitted to the current account.
That is not present in su, sudo ksudo etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068478</id>
	<title>Re:POLICY KIT!</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257087180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really do not want to go there. The initial release of PolicyKit <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/2007-June/008815.html" title="freedesktop.org">happened in 2007</a> [freedesktop.org]. The patent was filed in 2005. If PolicyKit does indeed match the claims of the patent, then all it means is that it violates the patent. It's definitely not prior art. Mentioning PolicyKit in this context just makes the matter worse, not better - you may just as well add a "so sue them" to every one of your posts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really do not want to go there .
The initial release of PolicyKit happened in 2007 [ freedesktop.org ] .
The patent was filed in 2005 .
If PolicyKit does indeed match the claims of the patent , then all it means is that it violates the patent .
It 's definitely not prior art .
Mentioning PolicyKit in this context just makes the matter worse , not better - you may just as well add a " so sue them " to every one of your posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really do not want to go there.
The initial release of PolicyKit happened in 2007 [freedesktop.org].
The patent was filed in 2005.
If PolicyKit does indeed match the claims of the patent, then all it means is that it violates the patent.
It's definitely not prior art.
Mentioning PolicyKit in this context just makes the matter worse, not better - you may just as well add a "so sue them" to every one of your posts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812</id>
	<title>Re:Liunx schminux</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1257075540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are thinking of just the root account, or maybe "su" which is really "login as root".</p><p>"sudo" as in "run a single command as root and furthermore examine the commands before running them and restrict them to a set, and furthermore examine the user trying to run sudo to select the restricted set" was developed after Linux was popular.</p><p>However I believe a good deal of the work was done on BSD and other Unixes as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are thinking of just the root account , or maybe " su " which is really " login as root " .
" sudo " as in " run a single command as root and furthermore examine the commands before running them and restrict them to a set , and furthermore examine the user trying to run sudo to select the restricted set " was developed after Linux was popular.However I believe a good deal of the work was done on BSD and other Unixes as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are thinking of just the root account, or maybe "su" which is really "login as root".
"sudo" as in "run a single command as root and furthermore examine the commands before running them and restrict them to a set, and furthermore examine the user trying to run sudo to select the restricted set" was developed after Linux was popular.However I believe a good deal of the work was done on BSD and other Unixes as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067592</id>
	<title>Patent office needs to be revoked of sudo access</title>
	<author>Darkk</author>
	<datestamp>1257080220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent office needs to be revoked of sudo access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent office needs to be revoked of sudo access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent office needs to be revoked of sudo access.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066120</id>
	<title>This just in!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Groklaw posts an article against some action by Microsoft!   Slashdot reports on it!</p><p>Doubters abound!   Questions Arise!</p><p>Who's right?  Who's wrong?</p><p>Nobody cares.</p><p>Interestingly, the word of the day is accuracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Groklaw posts an article against some action by Microsoft !
Slashdot reports on it ! Doubters abound !
Questions Arise ! Who 's right ?
Who 's wrong ? Nobody cares.Interestingly , the word of the day is accuracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Groklaw posts an article against some action by Microsoft!
Slashdot reports on it!Doubters abound!
Questions Arise!Who's right?
Who's wrong?Nobody cares.Interestingly, the word of the day is accuracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066556</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyer talk. IRIX had this behaviour in the package manager ages ago (start package manager unprivileged, dialog requesting root password). Red Carpet has this for some time now.</p><p>Same difference, ridiculous patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyer talk .
IRIX had this behaviour in the package manager ages ago ( start package manager unprivileged , dialog requesting root password ) .
Red Carpet has this for some time now.Same difference , ridiculous patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyer talk.
IRIX had this behaviour in the package manager ages ago (start package manager unprivileged, dialog requesting root password).
Red Carpet has this for some time now.Same difference, ridiculous patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067520</id>
	<title>Re:This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1257079680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first parts of your post are fine... but I have problems starting about here:</p><p><i>Also, I'm under the impression (based on the patent) that Windows is temporarily elevating the privileges of the application itself, which means that you now have a much larger chunk of code that must be checked for security holes, lest malicious individuals co-opt the application for nefarious purposes.</i></p><p>How is this different from the Linux sudo model or Apple's AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges? With that model, you start a process under sudo and it gets admin rights for the duration of the process.</p><p>By the "proportion of the code running with elevation" metric, Windows should actually be <i>better</i> in this regard, since the time between when the process starts to when it first elevates will be run without admin rights.</p><p><i>Such a design also makes it very hard to adequately use code signing to ensure the authenticity of the code running with elevated privileges...</i></p><p>As opposed to Sudo, which doesn't check the signature of the executable being run at all (at least AFAIK)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first parts of your post are fine... but I have problems starting about here : Also , I 'm under the impression ( based on the patent ) that Windows is temporarily elevating the privileges of the application itself , which means that you now have a much larger chunk of code that must be checked for security holes , lest malicious individuals co-opt the application for nefarious purposes.How is this different from the Linux sudo model or Apple 's AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges ?
With that model , you start a process under sudo and it gets admin rights for the duration of the process.By the " proportion of the code running with elevation " metric , Windows should actually be better in this regard , since the time between when the process starts to when it first elevates will be run without admin rights.Such a design also makes it very hard to adequately use code signing to ensure the authenticity of the code running with elevated privileges...As opposed to Sudo , which does n't check the signature of the executable being run at all ( at least AFAIK ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first parts of your post are fine... but I have problems starting about here:Also, I'm under the impression (based on the patent) that Windows is temporarily elevating the privileges of the application itself, which means that you now have a much larger chunk of code that must be checked for security holes, lest malicious individuals co-opt the application for nefarious purposes.How is this different from the Linux sudo model or Apple's AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges?
With that model, you start a process under sudo and it gets admin rights for the duration of the process.By the "proportion of the code running with elevation" metric, Windows should actually be better in this regard, since the time between when the process starts to when it first elevates will be run without admin rights.Such a design also makes it very hard to adequately use code signing to ensure the authenticity of the code running with elevated privileges...As opposed to Sudo, which doesn't check the signature of the executable being run at all (at least AFAIK)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067080</id>
	<title>Re:I have prior work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because there exists prior work does not mean that it is taken into consideration by the Examiner of the current application. The applicant is required to disclose to the USPTO relevant prior work, in this case mention of sudo, priv, etc. Based on the search results found by the Examiner, and all disclosed information provided to the Examiner, the Examiner determines whether the current application is patentable over existing art. Of course, the Examiner may not be aware of relevant art, which leads to undeserving patents being awarded. However, an issued patent can be challenged by issuing a reexamination.</p><p>Also, note that the title of the article and the rant at groklaw is a bit misleading. The invention does not cover prompting for an admin password, or the current user's password, in order to execute the desired task. Instead, the invention patented is limited by the claims to a GUI which displays a list of accounts which have the needed permissions to execute the desired task, and allowing the user to select one of the accounts and entering a password for the selected account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because there exists prior work does not mean that it is taken into consideration by the Examiner of the current application .
The applicant is required to disclose to the USPTO relevant prior work , in this case mention of sudo , priv , etc .
Based on the search results found by the Examiner , and all disclosed information provided to the Examiner , the Examiner determines whether the current application is patentable over existing art .
Of course , the Examiner may not be aware of relevant art , which leads to undeserving patents being awarded .
However , an issued patent can be challenged by issuing a reexamination.Also , note that the title of the article and the rant at groklaw is a bit misleading .
The invention does not cover prompting for an admin password , or the current user 's password , in order to execute the desired task .
Instead , the invention patented is limited by the claims to a GUI which displays a list of accounts which have the needed permissions to execute the desired task , and allowing the user to select one of the accounts and entering a password for the selected account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because there exists prior work does not mean that it is taken into consideration by the Examiner of the current application.
The applicant is required to disclose to the USPTO relevant prior work, in this case mention of sudo, priv, etc.
Based on the search results found by the Examiner, and all disclosed information provided to the Examiner, the Examiner determines whether the current application is patentable over existing art.
Of course, the Examiner may not be aware of relevant art, which leads to undeserving patents being awarded.
However, an issued patent can be challenged by issuing a reexamination.Also, note that the title of the article and the rant at groklaw is a bit misleading.
The invention does not cover prompting for an admin password, or the current user's password, in order to execute the desired task.
Instead, the invention patented is limited by the claims to a GUI which displays a list of accounts which have the needed permissions to execute the desired task, and allowing the user to select one of the accounts and entering a password for the selected account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070434</id>
	<title>anyone know what happens</title>
	<author>ILongForDarkness</author>
	<datestamp>1258020240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if someone patents an invention but then poorly implements. Say MS gets a patent for a "completely secure system" but it ends up being found that their is a bug in the code. Can people then reverse engineer/distribute something that implements the same thing? After all the product doesn't do what the patent claims so IMHO it isn't covered by the patent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if someone patents an invention but then poorly implements .
Say MS gets a patent for a " completely secure system " but it ends up being found that their is a bug in the code .
Can people then reverse engineer/distribute something that implements the same thing ?
After all the product does n't do what the patent claims so IMHO it is n't covered by the patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if someone patents an invention but then poorly implements.
Say MS gets a patent for a "completely secure system" but it ends up being found that their is a bug in the code.
Can people then reverse engineer/distribute something that implements the same thing?
After all the product doesn't do what the patent claims so IMHO it isn't covered by the patent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066384</id>
	<title>Seems to be describing what Ubuntu (Gnome) does</title>
	<author>ericthughes</author>
	<datestamp>1257073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when you attempt to mount a drive that is not defined in fstab. Ubuntu pops up a "enter your password" dialog. M$ maybe up to some dirty old tricks here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when you attempt to mount a drive that is not defined in fstab .
Ubuntu pops up a " enter your password " dialog .
M $ maybe up to some dirty old tricks here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when you attempt to mount a drive that is not defined in fstab.
Ubuntu pops up a "enter your password" dialog.
M$ maybe up to some dirty old tricks here...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068528</id>
	<title>Re:Not sudo.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257087600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting that the patent examiner was perfectly aware of su, sudo, gksu, kdesu, Ubuntu integration with gksu to call it as needed automatically, etc. Look at the "Other References" section of the patent:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"GKSU: A gtk+ su front end Linux Man Page" retrived at <a href="http://www.penguin-soft.com/peguin/man/1/gksu.html" title="penguin-soft.com">http://www.penguin-soft.com/peguin/man/1/gksu.html</a> [penguin-soft.com]</p><p>Lawrence, "Using Sudo", Linus Tutorials, May 12, 2005, retrieved at <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050530041932/www.developertutorials.com/tutorials/linux/using-sudo-050511/page1.html" title="archive.org">http://web.archive.org/web/20050530041932/www.developertutorials.com/tutorials/linux/using-sudo-050511/page1.html</a> [archive.org]</p><p>Miller, "Sudo Manual", Jul. 11, 2004 retrived at <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040711020526/http://www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudo.html" title="archive.org">http://web.archive.org/web/20040711020526/http://www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudo.html</a> [archive.org]</p><p>Miller, "Sudoers Manual", Jul. 11, 2004, retrived at <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040711020555/www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudoers.html" title="archive.org">http://web.archive.org/web/20040711020555/www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudoers.html</a> [archive.org]</p><p>Quick HOWTO: Ch09 : Linxus Users and Sudo, Dec. 23, 2005, retrived at <a href="http:web.archive.org/" title="archive.org">http:web.archive.org/</a> [archive.org] web/20060203023004/http://www.linuxhomenetworking.com/wiki/index.php/</p><p>"The KDE su Command", Nov. 20, 2004, retrived on <a href="http://www.linfo.org/kdesu.html" title="linfo.org">http://www.linfo.org/kdesu.html</a> [linfo.org]</p><p>"The Ubuntu Quick Guide. Chapter 3. Applications Menu: System Tools.", retrieved on <a href="http://people.ubuntu.com/.about.mako/docteam/quickguide/ch03s07.html" title="ubuntu.com">http://people.ubuntu.com/.about.mako/docteam/quickguide/ch03s07.html</a> [ubuntu.com]</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting that the patent examiner was perfectly aware of su , sudo , gksu , kdesu , Ubuntu integration with gksu to call it as needed automatically , etc .
Look at the " Other References " section of the patent : " GKSU : A gtk + su front end Linux Man Page " retrived at http : //www.penguin-soft.com/peguin/man/1/gksu.html [ penguin-soft.com ] Lawrence , " Using Sudo " , Linus Tutorials , May 12 , 2005 , retrieved at http : //web.archive.org/web/20050530041932/www.developertutorials.com/tutorials/linux/using-sudo-050511/page1.html [ archive.org ] Miller , " Sudo Manual " , Jul .
11 , 2004 retrived at http : //web.archive.org/web/20040711020526/http : //www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudo.html [ archive.org ] Miller , " Sudoers Manual " , Jul .
11 , 2004 , retrived at http : //web.archive.org/web/20040711020555/www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudoers.html [ archive.org ] Quick HOWTO : Ch09 : Linxus Users and Sudo , Dec. 23 , 2005 , retrived at http : web.archive.org/ [ archive.org ] web/20060203023004/http : //www.linuxhomenetworking.com/wiki/index.php/ " The KDE su Command " , Nov. 20 , 2004 , retrived on http : //www.linfo.org/kdesu.html [ linfo.org ] " The Ubuntu Quick Guide .
Chapter 3 .
Applications Menu : System Tools .
" , retrieved on http : //people.ubuntu.com/.about.mako/docteam/quickguide/ch03s07.html [ ubuntu.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting that the patent examiner was perfectly aware of su, sudo, gksu, kdesu, Ubuntu integration with gksu to call it as needed automatically, etc.
Look at the "Other References" section of the patent:"GKSU: A gtk+ su front end Linux Man Page" retrived at http://www.penguin-soft.com/peguin/man/1/gksu.html [penguin-soft.com]Lawrence, "Using Sudo", Linus Tutorials, May 12, 2005, retrieved at http://web.archive.org/web/20050530041932/www.developertutorials.com/tutorials/linux/using-sudo-050511/page1.html [archive.org]Miller, "Sudo Manual", Jul.
11, 2004 retrived at http://web.archive.org/web/20040711020526/http://www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudo.html [archive.org]Miller, "Sudoers Manual", Jul.
11, 2004, retrived at http://web.archive.org/web/20040711020555/www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudoers.html [archive.org]Quick HOWTO: Ch09 : Linxus Users and Sudo, Dec. 23, 2005, retrived at http:web.archive.org/ [archive.org] web/20060203023004/http://www.linuxhomenetworking.com/wiki/index.php/"The KDE su Command", Nov. 20, 2004, retrived on http://www.linfo.org/kdesu.html [linfo.org]"The Ubuntu Quick Guide.
Chapter 3.
Applications Menu: System Tools.
", retrieved on http://people.ubuntu.com/.about.mako/docteam/quickguide/ch03s07.html [ubuntu.com] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067386</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1257078720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There are fundamental differences between sudo (with or without a gui), the os x permission prompt, and what this patent is describing.
</p><p>
sudo: user specifies command which needs to be run with elevated security.<br>
os x (authorization services) : program requests authorization for specific operations, releases it when done<br>
ms (I only read enough to see it isn't sudo):  if a system call is made with insufficient privileges, the os pops up a window asking for an admin password.  Similar to os x authorization services, but the programmer/program doesn't ask for the authorization beforehand.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are fundamental differences between sudo ( with or without a gui ) , the os x permission prompt , and what this patent is describing .
sudo : user specifies command which needs to be run with elevated security .
os x ( authorization services ) : program requests authorization for specific operations , releases it when done ms ( I only read enough to see it is n't sudo ) : if a system call is made with insufficient privileges , the os pops up a window asking for an admin password .
Similar to os x authorization services , but the programmer/program does n't ask for the authorization beforehand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There are fundamental differences between sudo (with or without a gui), the os x permission prompt, and what this patent is describing.
sudo: user specifies command which needs to be run with elevated security.
os x (authorization services) : program requests authorization for specific operations, releases it when done
ms (I only read enough to see it isn't sudo):  if a system call is made with insufficient privileges, the os pops up a window asking for an admin password.
Similar to os x authorization services, but the programmer/program doesn't ask for the authorization beforehand.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066460</id>
	<title>This IS already being done in Linux</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1257073740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I'm not just talking about sudo/gksudo etc....look at "Policy Kit". This is EXACTLY what this Patent describes. EPIC FAIL Microsoft! The FREE SOFTWARE WORLD has OUT INNOVATED YOU AGAIN! Been doing this for at least more than a year. Been in design/documentation/talked about for even longer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'm not just talking about sudo/gksudo etc....look at " Policy Kit " .
This is EXACTLY what this Patent describes .
EPIC FAIL Microsoft !
The FREE SOFTWARE WORLD has OUT INNOVATED YOU AGAIN !
Been doing this for at least more than a year .
Been in design/documentation/talked about for even longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'm not just talking about sudo/gksudo etc....look at "Policy Kit".
This is EXACTLY what this Patent describes.
EPIC FAIL Microsoft!
The FREE SOFTWARE WORLD has OUT INNOVATED YOU AGAIN!
Been doing this for at least more than a year.
Been in design/documentation/talked about for even longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068252</id>
	<title>All Linux Systems?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>sudo isn't installed by default in *most* Linux systems. I believe the program you're looking for is <i>su</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sudo is n't installed by default in * most * Linux systems .
I believe the program you 're looking for is su .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sudo isn't installed by default in *most* Linux systems.
I believe the program you're looking for is su.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently the author at groklaw either doesn't understand patents, or doesn't understand the technology. Look at the very first claim:<p><div class="quote"><p>One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to present a user interface <b>in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task</b>, the user interface comprising: information indicating the task and an entity that attempted the task; a selectable help graphic wherein responsive to receiving selection of the selectable help graphic, the computer-readable instructions further cause the computing device to present the information; identifiers, each of the identifiers identifying other accounts having a right to permit the task, wherein the identifiers presented are based on criteria comprising: frequency of use; association with the user; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights; one of the identifiers identifies a higher-rights account having a right to permit the task, wherein the one of the identifiers comprises: a graphic identifying the higher-rights accounts associated with the user; and a name of the higher-rights account; an authenticator region capable of receiving, from the user, an authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account having the right to permit the task, wherein: the authenticator comprises a password, and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field configured to receive the password.</p></div><p>Emphasis mine. Sudo does not do this. Thus, this patent does not cover sudo.

Fini.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the author at groklaw either does n't understand patents , or does n't understand the technology .
Look at the very first claim : One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that , when executed by a computing device , cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user 's current account not having a right to permit the task , the user interface comprising : information indicating the task and an entity that attempted the task ; a selectable help graphic wherein responsive to receiving selection of the selectable help graphic , the computer-readable instructions further cause the computing device to present the information ; identifiers , each of the identifiers identifying other accounts having a right to permit the task , wherein the identifiers presented are based on criteria comprising : frequency of use ; association with the user ; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights ; one of the identifiers identifies a higher-rights account having a right to permit the task , wherein the one of the identifiers comprises : a graphic identifying the higher-rights accounts associated with the user ; and a name of the higher-rights account ; an authenticator region capable of receiving , from the user , an authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account having the right to permit the task , wherein : the authenticator comprises a password , and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field configured to receive the password.Emphasis mine .
Sudo does not do this .
Thus , this patent does not cover sudo .
Fini .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the author at groklaw either doesn't understand patents, or doesn't understand the technology.
Look at the very first claim:One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task, the user interface comprising: information indicating the task and an entity that attempted the task; a selectable help graphic wherein responsive to receiving selection of the selectable help graphic, the computer-readable instructions further cause the computing device to present the information; identifiers, each of the identifiers identifying other accounts having a right to permit the task, wherein the identifiers presented are based on criteria comprising: frequency of use; association with the user; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights; one of the identifiers identifies a higher-rights account having a right to permit the task, wherein the one of the identifiers comprises: a graphic identifying the higher-rights accounts associated with the user; and a name of the higher-rights account; an authenticator region capable of receiving, from the user, an authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account having the right to permit the task, wherein: the authenticator comprises a password, and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field configured to receive the password.Emphasis mine.
Sudo does not do this.
Thus, this patent does not cover sudo.
Fini.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106</id>
	<title>Re:claims</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1257072360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation, and disagrees with you.</p><p>Funny how you also don't provide the analysis into common english.</p><p>It's sudo with a gui, in other words: what macos does when you try to modify files in the system folder, or gksudo in linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation , and disagrees with you.Funny how you also do n't provide the analysis into common english.It 's sudo with a gui , in other words : what macos does when you try to modify files in the system folder , or gksudo in linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation, and disagrees with you.Funny how you also don't provide the analysis into common english.It's sudo with a gui, in other words: what macos does when you try to modify files in the system folder, or gksudo in linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30167970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30071214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30076028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30073938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30120492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30085728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30085532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30071054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30073946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30072738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30076978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30072058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30080898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30080184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30074178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_2055226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066230
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066556
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066460
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067104
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070772
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066994
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067520
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068696
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069124
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30080184
--------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30080898
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30167970
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30073938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067436
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066512
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066354
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067016
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066554
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066714
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070052
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30071214
--------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30076028
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066718
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070006
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30085728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30065978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30120492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30072738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30076978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066908
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30069898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30068528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30085532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30071054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30073946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30070246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30074178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30072058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30067336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_2055226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_2055226.30066080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
