<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_18_2030224</id>
	<title>France Tells Its Citizens To Abandon IE, Others Disagree</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263808140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:freistoss-slashdot@t-online.de" rel="nofollow">Freistoss</a> writes <i>"Microsoft still has not released a patch for a major zero-day flaw in IE6 that was used by Chinese hackers to attack Google. After sample code was posted on a website, calls began for Microsoft to release an out-of-cycle patch. Now, France has joined Germany in recommending its citizens <a href="http://www.pcw.co.uk/v3/news/2256302/pressure-microsoft-increases">abandon IE altogether</a>, rather than waiting for a patch. Microsoft still insists IE8 is the 'most secure browser on the market' and that they believe IE6 is the only browser susceptible to the flaw. However, security researchers warned that could soon change, and recommended considering alternative browsers as well."</i>  PCWorld seems to be taking the opposite stance arguing that <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/187119/dont\_kill\_the\_messenger\_blaming\_ie\_for\_attacks\_is\_dangerous.html">blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach</a> that could cause a false sense of security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Freistoss writes " Microsoft still has not released a patch for a major zero-day flaw in IE6 that was used by Chinese hackers to attack Google .
After sample code was posted on a website , calls began for Microsoft to release an out-of-cycle patch .
Now , France has joined Germany in recommending its citizens abandon IE altogether , rather than waiting for a patch .
Microsoft still insists IE8 is the 'most secure browser on the market ' and that they believe IE6 is the only browser susceptible to the flaw .
However , security researchers warned that could soon change , and recommended considering alternative browsers as well .
" PCWorld seems to be taking the opposite stance arguing that blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freistoss writes "Microsoft still has not released a patch for a major zero-day flaw in IE6 that was used by Chinese hackers to attack Google.
After sample code was posted on a website, calls began for Microsoft to release an out-of-cycle patch.
Now, France has joined Germany in recommending its citizens abandon IE altogether, rather than waiting for a patch.
Microsoft still insists IE8 is the 'most secure browser on the market' and that they believe IE6 is the only browser susceptible to the flaw.
However, security researchers warned that could soon change, and recommended considering alternative browsers as well.
"  PCWorld seems to be taking the opposite stance arguing that blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814554</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1263820320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>One reason I don't like to upgrade to newer versions of IE is because they seem to have HUGE memory leaks. Although I almost always use Firefox, [...]</i>
</p><p>Firefox is at least as bad.  Here I am with 3 separate Firefox instances, each chewing up over 500MB of RAM (admittedly with about 100 tabs open in each, but still...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason I do n't like to upgrade to newer versions of IE is because they seem to have HUGE memory leaks .
Although I almost always use Firefox , [ ... ] Firefox is at least as bad .
Here I am with 3 separate Firefox instances , each chewing up over 500MB of RAM ( admittedly with about 100 tabs open in each , but still... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> One reason I don't like to upgrade to newer versions of IE is because they seem to have HUGE memory leaks.
Although I almost always use Firefox, [...]
Firefox is at least as bad.
Here I am with 3 separate Firefox instances, each chewing up over 500MB of RAM (admittedly with about 100 tabs open in each, but still...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814530</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263820080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya, You're protected!  Viruses can NEVER run on your computer now, because there are no clock cycles or memory locations left for them to run on!</p><p>Virus protection is a broken band-aid.  The whole idea of it originally was to protect against a few viruses -- not the 750,000 that we have today. Case in point:  I do some 3D animation on the side for fun.  I have a scene in Maya that takes four minutes to render a frame.  I turn off my virus protection, and it takes a minute and a half.  Virus protection takes so much of your system resources that it nearly makes your computer useless.</p><p>And yes, IE <strong>is</strong> the problem (or at least one of the biggest problems).  I manage 45 computers, and I've been a network admin for twelve years.  My experience with spyware, adware, viruses, and the like is this.  I've had users get inundated with them time and time again. I'm talking ten or fifteen viruses and hundreds of spyware programs.  I clean it off, and they get it back.  I scrape it off again, and they get it back.  I scrape it off yet again, switch them from IE to Firefox, and the problem disappears. And yes, it <strong>is</strong> IE8.</p><p>Explain that away, IE fanboys.  IE is the biggest security hole in the computer industry.  I could have probably gone with just about any of the other major players like Opera, Chrome, and Safari, and gotten the same results.  Microsoft should be taken to task for false advertising if they're claiming that IE8 is the "most secure browser on the market".</p><p>Now, I don't like to complain about something without offering something positive.  If anyone is wondering, I've taken to installing Firefox and making them use it, and also I don't give out admin privileges.  Everyone on my network runs as a normal user.  If the software demands admin privileges, we replace it with something that doesn't.  The other thing that I do is I use entries in the hosts file on each individual machine to block known bad websites.  I've managed (knocking on wood) to make virus problems nearly nonexistent.  I consider antivirus to be a last-line defense.  Oh, and I also have users flogged for opening unknown email attachments.  (Interestingly enough, the captcha word for this post is "repress". LOL)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya , You 're protected !
Viruses can NEVER run on your computer now , because there are no clock cycles or memory locations left for them to run on ! Virus protection is a broken band-aid .
The whole idea of it originally was to protect against a few viruses -- not the 750,000 that we have today .
Case in point : I do some 3D animation on the side for fun .
I have a scene in Maya that takes four minutes to render a frame .
I turn off my virus protection , and it takes a minute and a half .
Virus protection takes so much of your system resources that it nearly makes your computer useless.And yes , IE is the problem ( or at least one of the biggest problems ) .
I manage 45 computers , and I 've been a network admin for twelve years .
My experience with spyware , adware , viruses , and the like is this .
I 've had users get inundated with them time and time again .
I 'm talking ten or fifteen viruses and hundreds of spyware programs .
I clean it off , and they get it back .
I scrape it off again , and they get it back .
I scrape it off yet again , switch them from IE to Firefox , and the problem disappears .
And yes , it is IE8.Explain that away , IE fanboys .
IE is the biggest security hole in the computer industry .
I could have probably gone with just about any of the other major players like Opera , Chrome , and Safari , and gotten the same results .
Microsoft should be taken to task for false advertising if they 're claiming that IE8 is the " most secure browser on the market " .Now , I do n't like to complain about something without offering something positive .
If anyone is wondering , I 've taken to installing Firefox and making them use it , and also I do n't give out admin privileges .
Everyone on my network runs as a normal user .
If the software demands admin privileges , we replace it with something that does n't .
The other thing that I do is I use entries in the hosts file on each individual machine to block known bad websites .
I 've managed ( knocking on wood ) to make virus problems nearly nonexistent .
I consider antivirus to be a last-line defense .
Oh , and I also have users flogged for opening unknown email attachments .
( Interestingly enough , the captcha word for this post is " repress " .
LOL )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya, You're protected!
Viruses can NEVER run on your computer now, because there are no clock cycles or memory locations left for them to run on!Virus protection is a broken band-aid.
The whole idea of it originally was to protect against a few viruses -- not the 750,000 that we have today.
Case in point:  I do some 3D animation on the side for fun.
I have a scene in Maya that takes four minutes to render a frame.
I turn off my virus protection, and it takes a minute and a half.
Virus protection takes so much of your system resources that it nearly makes your computer useless.And yes, IE is the problem (or at least one of the biggest problems).
I manage 45 computers, and I've been a network admin for twelve years.
My experience with spyware, adware, viruses, and the like is this.
I've had users get inundated with them time and time again.
I'm talking ten or fifteen viruses and hundreds of spyware programs.
I clean it off, and they get it back.
I scrape it off again, and they get it back.
I scrape it off yet again, switch them from IE to Firefox, and the problem disappears.
And yes, it is IE8.Explain that away, IE fanboys.
IE is the biggest security hole in the computer industry.
I could have probably gone with just about any of the other major players like Opera, Chrome, and Safari, and gotten the same results.
Microsoft should be taken to task for false advertising if they're claiming that IE8 is the "most secure browser on the market".Now, I don't like to complain about something without offering something positive.
If anyone is wondering, I've taken to installing Firefox and making them use it, and also I don't give out admin privileges.
Everyone on my network runs as a normal user.
If the software demands admin privileges, we replace it with something that doesn't.
The other thing that I do is I use entries in the hosts file on each individual machine to block known bad websites.
I've managed (knocking on wood) to make virus problems nearly nonexistent.
I consider antivirus to be a last-line defense.
Oh, and I also have users flogged for opening unknown email attachments.
(Interestingly enough, the captcha word for this post is "repress".
LOL)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814068</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never work...</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1263816900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The attack wasn't patched in IE7 or 8, and is even vulnerable in IE8 on Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The attack was n't patched in IE7 or 8 , and is even vulnerable in IE8 on Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The attack wasn't patched in IE7 or 8, and is even vulnerable in IE8 on Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263812940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The article fails to explain how blaming the software with a known exploit is dangerous.</p></div><p>How about blaming people using ridiculously out of date software? It's IE6 for fuck's sake, it's 2 versions behind, and there's no evidence to suggest that the flaw exists in IE 7 or 8, but yet, because this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. we'll go on blaming Microsoft for not patching an obsolete product? Hint: The fix has been out for quite some time now, it's called IE8.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> I think, after reading this and other articles, it is more dangerous to continue to assert that IE is secure.</p></div><p>I think you should be aware that even according to the summary, It's clear that the exploit in question is in IE6, and Microsoft did not state that IE6 is secure, but rather that IE 8 is secure. I don't expect you to RTFA, this is Slashdot, after at, but for fuck's sake, at the very least, read the bloody summary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article fails to explain how blaming the software with a known exploit is dangerous.How about blaming people using ridiculously out of date software ?
It 's IE6 for fuck 's sake , it 's 2 versions behind , and there 's no evidence to suggest that the flaw exists in IE 7 or 8 , but yet , because this is / .
we 'll go on blaming Microsoft for not patching an obsolete product ?
Hint : The fix has been out for quite some time now , it 's called IE8 .
I think , after reading this and other articles , it is more dangerous to continue to assert that IE is secure.I think you should be aware that even according to the summary , It 's clear that the exploit in question is in IE6 , and Microsoft did not state that IE6 is secure , but rather that IE 8 is secure .
I do n't expect you to RTFA , this is Slashdot , after at , but for fuck 's sake , at the very least , read the bloody summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article fails to explain how blaming the software with a known exploit is dangerous.How about blaming people using ridiculously out of date software?
It's IE6 for fuck's sake, it's 2 versions behind, and there's no evidence to suggest that the flaw exists in IE 7 or 8, but yet, because this is /.
we'll go on blaming Microsoft for not patching an obsolete product?
Hint: The fix has been out for quite some time now, it's called IE8.
I think, after reading this and other articles, it is more dangerous to continue to assert that IE is secure.I think you should be aware that even according to the summary, It's clear that the exploit in question is in IE6, and Microsoft did not state that IE6 is secure, but rather that IE 8 is secure.
I don't expect you to RTFA, this is Slashdot, after at, but for fuck's sake, at the very least, read the bloody summary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813658</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263814500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
It's like saying you might as well keep your money in a wet paper sack as opposed to a guarded bank vault in an FDIC insured institution, because they both can be comprimised. After all, you wouldn't want to have a false sense of security!

Now yes, the difference between Chrome/Firefox isn't quite so stark, but it's an analogy dammit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like saying you might as well keep your money in a wet paper sack as opposed to a guarded bank vault in an FDIC insured institution , because they both can be comprimised .
After all , you would n't want to have a false sense of security !
Now yes , the difference between Chrome/Firefox is n't quite so stark , but it 's an analogy dammit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's like saying you might as well keep your money in a wet paper sack as opposed to a guarded bank vault in an FDIC insured institution, because they both can be comprimised.
After all, you wouldn't want to have a false sense of security!
Now yes, the difference between Chrome/Firefox isn't quite so stark, but it's an analogy dammit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</id>
	<title>Tear down</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1263811860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Don't Kill the Messenger: Blaming IE for Attacks is Dangerous"</p><p>Actually, IE is not the messenger, its the <b>source</b> of at least one know security hole that participated in this problem.</p><p>The article fails to explain how blaming the software with a known exploit is dangerous.</p><p>They assert it will create a "false sense of security" because there exist other methods of attack (other software with security flaws).  Even if they did have support for other security holes, this reasoning is an absurd logical fallacy.  Amazingly, the author doesn't even have support for the premise of the illogic  it's based on an *implication* from a quote by McAfee CTO George Kurtz.</p><p>
&nbsp; FTA:  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The main thing to keep in mind is that these attacks go beyond Internet Explorer and that simply switching browsers is not an adequate defense.</p> </div><p>This is completely absurd FUD.  IE *was used*, it is insecure, and there is no fix (yet).  These conclusions come right from this article and others.</p><p>Obvious conclusion: use different software.  This conclusion is also supported by the long and consistent history of security issues with IE.  I think, after reading this and other articles, <b>it is more dangerous to continue to assert that IE is secure.</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do n't Kill the Messenger : Blaming IE for Attacks is Dangerous " Actually , IE is not the messenger , its the source of at least one know security hole that participated in this problem.The article fails to explain how blaming the software with a known exploit is dangerous.They assert it will create a " false sense of security " because there exist other methods of attack ( other software with security flaws ) .
Even if they did have support for other security holes , this reasoning is an absurd logical fallacy .
Amazingly , the author does n't even have support for the premise of the illogic it 's based on an * implication * from a quote by McAfee CTO George Kurtz .
  FTA : The main thing to keep in mind is that these attacks go beyond Internet Explorer and that simply switching browsers is not an adequate defense .
This is completely absurd FUD .
IE * was used * , it is insecure , and there is no fix ( yet ) .
These conclusions come right from this article and others.Obvious conclusion : use different software .
This conclusion is also supported by the long and consistent history of security issues with IE .
I think , after reading this and other articles , it is more dangerous to continue to assert that IE is secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Don't Kill the Messenger: Blaming IE for Attacks is Dangerous"Actually, IE is not the messenger, its the source of at least one know security hole that participated in this problem.The article fails to explain how blaming the software with a known exploit is dangerous.They assert it will create a "false sense of security" because there exist other methods of attack (other software with security flaws).
Even if they did have support for other security holes, this reasoning is an absurd logical fallacy.
Amazingly, the author doesn't even have support for the premise of the illogic  it's based on an *implication* from a quote by McAfee CTO George Kurtz.
  FTA:  The main thing to keep in mind is that these attacks go beyond Internet Explorer and that simply switching browsers is not an adequate defense.
This is completely absurd FUD.
IE *was used*, it is insecure, and there is no fix (yet).
These conclusions come right from this article and others.Obvious conclusion: use different software.
This conclusion is also supported by the long and consistent history of security issues with IE.
I think, after reading this and other articles, it is more dangerous to continue to assert that IE is secure.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813598</id>
	<title>Shouldn't the title be rephrased?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263814200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"France Surrenders the Browser War"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" France Surrenders the Browser War "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"France Surrenders the Browser War"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813798</id>
	<title>Re:Don't switch?</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1263815340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"You may also have web-based applications that don't work well, or even at all, unless they are accessed with Internet Explorer. </p></div><p>And I ask yet again, why does business use any mission-critical web-apps that can only deal with a specific browser (or worse, a specific version)<br> <br>
*sigh*<br>My employer's payroll department still won't answer this question. Idiots</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You may also have web-based applications that do n't work well , or even at all , unless they are accessed with Internet Explorer .
And I ask yet again , why does business use any mission-critical web-apps that can only deal with a specific browser ( or worse , a specific version ) * sigh * My employer 's payroll department still wo n't answer this question .
Idiots</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You may also have web-based applications that don't work well, or even at all, unless they are accessed with Internet Explorer.
And I ask yet again, why does business use any mission-critical web-apps that can only deal with a specific browser (or worse, a specific version) 
*sigh*My employer's payroll department still won't answer this question.
Idiots
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816718</id>
	<title>Just say NO to Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263931380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I know that doesn't sit well with Web Weasels out there, but had they switched off Javascript...</p><p>Just sayin'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I know that does n't sit well with Web Weasels out there , but had they switched off Javascript...Just sayin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I know that doesn't sit well with Web Weasels out there, but had they switched off Javascript...Just sayin'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813392</id>
	<title>This just in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263813300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>France, Germany, Russia, and the fucking Queen of England recommend not to use Blender due to it's overly complex interface.

Thank you government, for stepping in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>France , Germany , Russia , and the fucking Queen of England recommend not to use Blender due to it 's overly complex interface .
Thank you government , for stepping in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>France, Germany, Russia, and the fucking Queen of England recommend not to use Blender due to it's overly complex interface.
Thank you government, for stepping in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813878</id>
	<title>Abandon it anyway?</title>
	<author>cprocjr</author>
	<datestamp>1263815700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It could create a false sense of security by telling people to switch, and Microsoft is patching the problem. But aren't there TONS of other reason why to abandon IE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could create a false sense of security by telling people to switch , and Microsoft is patching the problem .
But are n't there TONS of other reason why to abandon IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could create a false sense of security by telling people to switch, and Microsoft is patching the problem.
But aren't there TONS of other reason why to abandon IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815716</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263831360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There should be zero copies of IE6 in the wild right now. I don't care how big your corporation is, how shitty the "enterprise" software you purchased back in '99 is, but figure it the fuck out and get your people off IE6 right now. And then? There's no excuse for this bullshit, and I don't want to hear any sob stories.</p><p>IE7 has been out now for over 3 years, if you can't figure out how to move to it by now, you should be fired.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I see.  So, because IE6 is so horrible, people should...use a newer version?  Why not uninstall it?  Oh, that's right, you can't without hacking the installation and/or directly deleting OS files.  And if you do, you break all sorts of that "enterprise" software.  Meanwhile, if you do upgrade, you're generally just as at risk with IE even if you don't run iexplore.exe.</p><p>So, for a different reason, I agree with PCWorld.  Not using iexplore.exe would give companies a false sense of security.  The only solutions to solving the long-term problems with IE is to either rip out its components as best you can and deal with the consequences (like making sure updates don't reconstitute parts of it later) or stop using Windows.  I don't think most companies are really in a position that the latter is a viable option, and I'm not really should how viable the former really is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be zero copies of IE6 in the wild right now .
I do n't care how big your corporation is , how shitty the " enterprise " software you purchased back in '99 is , but figure it the fuck out and get your people off IE6 right now .
And then ?
There 's no excuse for this bullshit , and I do n't want to hear any sob stories.IE7 has been out now for over 3 years , if you ca n't figure out how to move to it by now , you should be fired .
I see .
So , because IE6 is so horrible , people should...use a newer version ?
Why not uninstall it ?
Oh , that 's right , you ca n't without hacking the installation and/or directly deleting OS files .
And if you do , you break all sorts of that " enterprise " software .
Meanwhile , if you do upgrade , you 're generally just as at risk with IE even if you do n't run iexplore.exe.So , for a different reason , I agree with PCWorld .
Not using iexplore.exe would give companies a false sense of security .
The only solutions to solving the long-term problems with IE is to either rip out its components as best you can and deal with the consequences ( like making sure updates do n't reconstitute parts of it later ) or stop using Windows .
I do n't think most companies are really in a position that the latter is a viable option , and I 'm not really should how viable the former really is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be zero copies of IE6 in the wild right now.
I don't care how big your corporation is, how shitty the "enterprise" software you purchased back in '99 is, but figure it the fuck out and get your people off IE6 right now.
And then?
There's no excuse for this bullshit, and I don't want to hear any sob stories.IE7 has been out now for over 3 years, if you can't figure out how to move to it by now, you should be fired.
I see.
So, because IE6 is so horrible, people should...use a newer version?
Why not uninstall it?
Oh, that's right, you can't without hacking the installation and/or directly deleting OS files.
And if you do, you break all sorts of that "enterprise" software.
Meanwhile, if you do upgrade, you're generally just as at risk with IE even if you don't run iexplore.exe.So, for a different reason, I agree with PCWorld.
Not using iexplore.exe would give companies a false sense of security.
The only solutions to solving the long-term problems with IE is to either rip out its components as best you can and deal with the consequences (like making sure updates don't reconstitute parts of it later) or stop using Windows.
I don't think most companies are really in a position that the latter is a viable option, and I'm not really should how viable the former really is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813296</id>
	<title>PCWorld is ignoring security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263812820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would a website like PCWorld recommend it's users NOT to ban Internet Explorer? It's both foolish and stupid, still recommending Internet Explorer that is short sighted.</p><p>It seems like me this is just Microsoft propaganda, seriously their is not a single reason why you should use Internet Explorer above any other modern browser like Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would a website like PCWorld recommend it 's users NOT to ban Internet Explorer ?
It 's both foolish and stupid , still recommending Internet Explorer that is short sighted.It seems like me this is just Microsoft propaganda , seriously their is not a single reason why you should use Internet Explorer above any other modern browser like Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would a website like PCWorld recommend it's users NOT to ban Internet Explorer?
It's both foolish and stupid, still recommending Internet Explorer that is short sighted.It seems like me this is just Microsoft propaganda, seriously their is not a single reason why you should use Internet Explorer above any other modern browser like Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813400</id>
	<title>Air-wall is the answer</title>
	<author>MrEricSir</author>
	<datestamp>1263813300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of doing all your web browsing on a computer that's connected to a network -- which is inherently insecure -- consider only using the internet  on systems which are isolated from the network with an "air-wall."</p><p>This security solution is effective at preventing viruses, trojans, worms, clickjacking, DNS spoofing, and most other malware as well.</p><p>Next up: avoid cancer by not breathing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of doing all your web browsing on a computer that 's connected to a network -- which is inherently insecure -- consider only using the internet on systems which are isolated from the network with an " air-wall .
" This security solution is effective at preventing viruses , trojans , worms , clickjacking , DNS spoofing , and most other malware as well.Next up : avoid cancer by not breathing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of doing all your web browsing on a computer that's connected to a network -- which is inherently insecure -- consider only using the internet  on systems which are isolated from the network with an "air-wall.
"This security solution is effective at preventing viruses, trojans, worms, clickjacking, DNS spoofing, and most other malware as well.Next up: avoid cancer by not breathing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816176</id>
	<title>Re:Air-wall is the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263836940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume the Air-wall also comes with superglue to seal usb/firewire/serial/parallel/NIC ports, floppy, and optical drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume the Air-wall also comes with superglue to seal usb/firewire/serial/parallel/NIC ports , floppy , and optical drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume the Air-wall also comes with superglue to seal usb/firewire/serial/parallel/NIC ports, floppy, and optical drives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813588</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263814140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the big issue is "people are not upgrading."</p><p>There should be zero copies of IE6 in the wild right now. I don't care how big your corporation is, how shitty the "enterprise" software you purchased back in '99 is, but figure it the fuck out and get your people off IE6 right now. And then? There's no excuse for this bullshit, and I don't want to hear any sob stories.</p><p>IE7 has been out now for over 3 years, if you can't figure out how to move to it by now, you should be fired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the big issue is " people are not upgrading .
" There should be zero copies of IE6 in the wild right now .
I do n't care how big your corporation is , how shitty the " enterprise " software you purchased back in '99 is , but figure it the fuck out and get your people off IE6 right now .
And then ?
There 's no excuse for this bullshit , and I do n't want to hear any sob stories.IE7 has been out now for over 3 years , if you ca n't figure out how to move to it by now , you should be fired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the big issue is "people are not upgrading.
"There should be zero copies of IE6 in the wild right now.
I don't care how big your corporation is, how shitty the "enterprise" software you purchased back in '99 is, but figure it the fuck out and get your people off IE6 right now.
And then?
There's no excuse for this bullshit, and I don't want to hear any sob stories.IE7 has been out now for over 3 years, if you can't figure out how to move to it by now, you should be fired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813764</id>
	<title>Re:False sense of security</title>
	<author>aarenz</author>
	<datestamp>1263815160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once IE has less than 15\% of the market share, it will become the safest browser available. Anyone who assumes that other browswers are really that much safer are diluded. If the majority of people use a product on their computer it becomes a target. Once the market has flipped, whoever is on top will be targeted and will show all of its holes to the world.  <br> <br>
The only way to protect a computer from attacks is to never attatch it to the internet, or train the user not to go to websites that are not trusted. OS issues are the same problem, no one would ever think of writing a hack/virus for a commodore today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once IE has less than 15 \ % of the market share , it will become the safest browser available .
Anyone who assumes that other browswers are really that much safer are diluded .
If the majority of people use a product on their computer it becomes a target .
Once the market has flipped , whoever is on top will be targeted and will show all of its holes to the world .
The only way to protect a computer from attacks is to never attatch it to the internet , or train the user not to go to websites that are not trusted .
OS issues are the same problem , no one would ever think of writing a hack/virus for a commodore today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once IE has less than 15\% of the market share, it will become the safest browser available.
Anyone who assumes that other browswers are really that much safer are diluded.
If the majority of people use a product on their computer it becomes a target.
Once the market has flipped, whoever is on top will be targeted and will show all of its holes to the world.
The only way to protect a computer from attacks is to never attatch it to the internet, or train the user not to go to websites that are not trusted.
OS issues are the same problem, no one would ever think of writing a hack/virus for a commodore today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30834328</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Worthless\_Comments</author>
	<datestamp>1264012020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has been reported repeatedly that IE 6-8 all have this exploit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been reported repeatedly that IE 6-8 all have this exploit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been reported repeatedly that IE 6-8 all have this exploit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814306</id>
	<title>Re:Are the changes that different from Win2k and X</title>
	<author>jzhos</author>
	<datestamp>1263818340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you going to pay for all the extra work testing all the different versions/languages of windows 2000 pro / server /<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... That is a 10 years old operating system after all and way less popular than XP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you going to pay for all the extra work testing all the different versions/languages of windows 2000 pro / server / ... That is a 10 years old operating system after all and way less popular than XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you going to pay for all the extra work testing all the different versions/languages of windows 2000 pro / server / ... That is a 10 years old operating system after all and way less popular than XP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814552</id>
	<title>Re:It'll never work...</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1263820320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But the problem wasn't in IE8 - it was in IE6 - so it was brought about by people who are using a version of IE that was replaced 1 to 2 years ago."</p><p>false. IE8 is also affected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But the problem was n't in IE8 - it was in IE6 - so it was brought about by people who are using a version of IE that was replaced 1 to 2 years ago. " false .
IE8 is also affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But the problem wasn't in IE8 - it was in IE6 - so it was brought about by people who are using a version of IE that was replaced 1 to 2 years ago."false.
IE8 is also affected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813466</id>
	<title>Dont Kill the Messenger?</title>
	<author>smd75</author>
	<datestamp>1263813600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this case, the messenger was the one who compromised and betrayed the system.
Saying IE isn't to blame is just simply wrong and uneducated. IE is a terrible browser on so many levels beyond security.
Yes, this is Google, and no they shouldn't only be using Chrome, because you cant uninstall IE from XP. Some people just click on internet shortcuts or links without even caring which browser it is. This isn't the fault of Google. This is the fault of Microsoft for neglecting their shoddy products, even if it is 2 generations old now. This isn't a (real) reason to jump ship on XP, Microsoft just wants to get rid of XP, which is another mistake.

I am losing more and more respect for Tech Columnists every day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , the messenger was the one who compromised and betrayed the system .
Saying IE is n't to blame is just simply wrong and uneducated .
IE is a terrible browser on so many levels beyond security .
Yes , this is Google , and no they should n't only be using Chrome , because you cant uninstall IE from XP .
Some people just click on internet shortcuts or links without even caring which browser it is .
This is n't the fault of Google .
This is the fault of Microsoft for neglecting their shoddy products , even if it is 2 generations old now .
This is n't a ( real ) reason to jump ship on XP , Microsoft just wants to get rid of XP , which is another mistake .
I am losing more and more respect for Tech Columnists every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, the messenger was the one who compromised and betrayed the system.
Saying IE isn't to blame is just simply wrong and uneducated.
IE is a terrible browser on so many levels beyond security.
Yes, this is Google, and no they shouldn't only be using Chrome, because you cant uninstall IE from XP.
Some people just click on internet shortcuts or links without even caring which browser it is.
This isn't the fault of Google.
This is the fault of Microsoft for neglecting their shoddy products, even if it is 2 generations old now.
This isn't a (real) reason to jump ship on XP, Microsoft just wants to get rid of XP, which is another mistake.
I am losing more and more respect for Tech Columnists every day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30819038</id>
	<title>Re:Running 2 revisions out of date?</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1263915720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, code that was perfectly fine 12 years ago is much better today, than fresh code. You know, software also matures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , code that was perfectly fine 12 years ago is much better today , than fresh code .
You know , software also matures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, code that was perfectly fine 12 years ago is much better today, than fresh code.
You know, software also matures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813442</id>
	<title>Re:False sense of security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263813480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, Apple, more to the point Apple users, live in this wondrous world where they are safer from hackers and viruses. The truth is that most of the world is/was on a PC and that skews the statistics because most hackers and viruses know this and target PCs. I'm sure that if the people responsible spent the same number of man-hours on apple software, the numbers would be a lot more even. Note: I'm not saying that Microsoft doesn't have a responsibility to fix their software, only that the skewed numbers have to be kept in mind when comparing these types of statistics. If anything Microsoft should know that they're the biggest target and code appropriately... Otherwise, yes, of course magazines with an agenda will be spinning the story appropriately (meaning I do agree with you).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Apple , more to the point Apple users , live in this wondrous world where they are safer from hackers and viruses .
The truth is that most of the world is/was on a PC and that skews the statistics because most hackers and viruses know this and target PCs .
I 'm sure that if the people responsible spent the same number of man-hours on apple software , the numbers would be a lot more even .
Note : I 'm not saying that Microsoft does n't have a responsibility to fix their software , only that the skewed numbers have to be kept in mind when comparing these types of statistics .
If anything Microsoft should know that they 're the biggest target and code appropriately... Otherwise , yes , of course magazines with an agenda will be spinning the story appropriately ( meaning I do agree with you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Apple, more to the point Apple users, live in this wondrous world where they are safer from hackers and viruses.
The truth is that most of the world is/was on a PC and that skews the statistics because most hackers and viruses know this and target PCs.
I'm sure that if the people responsible spent the same number of man-hours on apple software, the numbers would be a lot more even.
Note: I'm not saying that Microsoft doesn't have a responsibility to fix their software, only that the skewed numbers have to be kept in mind when comparing these types of statistics.
If anything Microsoft should know that they're the biggest target and code appropriately... Otherwise, yes, of course magazines with an agenda will be spinning the story appropriately (meaning I do agree with you).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814850</id>
	<title>There is a patch already...</title>
	<author>atmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1263822420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...either install a newer version of IE or install a new web browser all together.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...either install a newer version of IE or install a new web browser all together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...either install a newer version of IE or install a new web browser all together.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815554</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1263829500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I love Firefox and use it almost exclusively, but I'm pretty sure Firefox has more major memory leak problems than IE 8</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I love Firefox and use it almost exclusively , but I 'm pretty sure Firefox has more major memory leak problems than IE 8</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I love Firefox and use it almost exclusively, but I'm pretty sure Firefox has more major memory leak problems than IE 8</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814318</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1263818400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>More to the point, IE doesn't run on MacOSX; BSD.any.flavor; *nix.any.flavor<br>IE runs exclusively on M$ Windoz.all.flavors operating systems</i></p><p><i>IE6 just provides the easiest port of entry for bad guys into <b>anyone</b>'s box, than any other version of IE.</i></p><p>Emphasis mine. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there.  IE6 can't provide a port of entry on this Macbook Pro or the two linux boxes on the shelves next to my desk, because I don't run any version of IE on any of these machines.  It only provides a point of entry if you're running MS Windows and some version of IE.  (Too bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. won't let you go back and edit your text slightly so that readers don't get distracted by this error.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p><i>M$ to claim that IE8 is the most secure browser out there is like saying cigarettes cure lung cancer.</i></p><p>Actually, it would be a better simile if you were to say that a particular brand of low-tar cigarettes cures cancer.  As far as I know, no tobacco company has actually claimed this in their ads, though I've seen some ads that contain "weasel words" that will imply that to most listeners.</p><p>In any case, MS seems to have admitted that the hole is in all versions of IE, so it would really be more like the tobacco company admitting that their cigarettes might (in rare cases) cause cancer, but their low-tar brand will cause fewer cancers.</p><p>OTOH, someone has already posted a pretty good automotive analogy, so I won't do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , IE does n't run on MacOSX ; BSD.any.flavor ; * nix.any.flavorIE runs exclusively on M $ Windoz.all.flavors operating systemsIE6 just provides the easiest port of entry for bad guys into anyone 's box , than any other version of IE.Emphasis mine .
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there .
IE6 ca n't provide a port of entry on this Macbook Pro or the two linux boxes on the shelves next to my desk , because I do n't run any version of IE on any of these machines .
It only provides a point of entry if you 're running MS Windows and some version of IE .
( Too bad / .
wo n't let you go back and edit your text slightly so that readers do n't get distracted by this error .
; - ) M $ to claim that IE8 is the most secure browser out there is like saying cigarettes cure lung cancer.Actually , it would be a better simile if you were to say that a particular brand of low-tar cigarettes cures cancer .
As far as I know , no tobacco company has actually claimed this in their ads , though I 've seen some ads that contain " weasel words " that will imply that to most listeners.In any case , MS seems to have admitted that the hole is in all versions of IE , so it would really be more like the tobacco company admitting that their cigarettes might ( in rare cases ) cause cancer , but their low-tar brand will cause fewer cancers.OTOH , someone has already posted a pretty good automotive analogy , so I wo n't do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, IE doesn't run on MacOSX; BSD.any.flavor; *nix.any.flavorIE runs exclusively on M$ Windoz.all.flavors operating systemsIE6 just provides the easiest port of entry for bad guys into anyone's box, than any other version of IE.Emphasis mine.
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there.
IE6 can't provide a port of entry on this Macbook Pro or the two linux boxes on the shelves next to my desk, because I don't run any version of IE on any of these machines.
It only provides a point of entry if you're running MS Windows and some version of IE.
(Too bad /.
won't let you go back and edit your text slightly so that readers don't get distracted by this error.
;-)M$ to claim that IE8 is the most secure browser out there is like saying cigarettes cure lung cancer.Actually, it would be a better simile if you were to say that a particular brand of low-tar cigarettes cures cancer.
As far as I know, no tobacco company has actually claimed this in their ads, though I've seen some ads that contain "weasel words" that will imply that to most listeners.In any case, MS seems to have admitted that the hole is in all versions of IE, so it would really be more like the tobacco company admitting that their cigarettes might (in rare cases) cause cancer, but their low-tar brand will cause fewer cancers.OTOH, someone has already posted a pretty good automotive analogy, so I won't do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813796</id>
	<title>Re:PCWorld is ignoring security</title>
	<author>Thundarr Trollgrim</author>
	<datestamp>1263815280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>PC World make a lot of money providing malware / virus removal for non-tchies, selling anti-virus software and more importantly, <b>selling new computers to people whose old computers have slowed down due to misuse, rather than cleaning them up</b>.<br> <br>It's not really in their interest for people to use more secure browsers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PC World make a lot of money providing malware / virus removal for non-tchies , selling anti-virus software and more importantly , selling new computers to people whose old computers have slowed down due to misuse , rather than cleaning them up .
It 's not really in their interest for people to use more secure browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PC World make a lot of money providing malware / virus removal for non-tchies, selling anti-virus software and more importantly, selling new computers to people whose old computers have slowed down due to misuse, rather than cleaning them up.
It's not really in their interest for people to use more secure browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813432</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263813480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and there's no evidence to suggest that the flaw exists in IE 7 or 8</p></div><p>You need to visit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. more frequently. On today's frontpage you may find <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1153126/MS-upgrade-to-IE8-even-though-its-vulnerable?art\_pos=38" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this submission</a> [slashdot.org], which references <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/354868/microsoft-upgrade-to-ie8-even-though-its-vulnerable" title="pcpro.co.uk" rel="nofollow">this article</a> [pcpro.co.uk], which contains this sentence:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But although Internet Explorer 6 has been the source of attacks until now, Microsoft's advisory admits that both IE7 and IE8 are vulnerable to the same flaw, even on Windows 7.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and there 's no evidence to suggest that the flaw exists in IE 7 or 8You need to visit / .
more frequently .
On today 's frontpage you may find this submission [ slashdot.org ] , which references this article [ pcpro.co.uk ] , which contains this sentence : But although Internet Explorer 6 has been the source of attacks until now , Microsoft 's advisory admits that both IE7 and IE8 are vulnerable to the same flaw , even on Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and there's no evidence to suggest that the flaw exists in IE 7 or 8You need to visit /.
more frequently.
On today's frontpage you may find this submission [slashdot.org], which references this article [pcpro.co.uk], which contains this sentence:But although Internet Explorer 6 has been the source of attacks until now, Microsoft's advisory admits that both IE7 and IE8 are vulnerable to the same flaw, even on Windows 7.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815544</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263829380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be argued that the EU as it exists today has its roots in the cooperation between Germany and France that has been going on for nearly half a century.  WWII was a long time ago, things change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be argued that the EU as it exists today has its roots in the cooperation between Germany and France that has been going on for nearly half a century .
WWII was a long time ago , things change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be argued that the EU as it exists today has its roots in the cooperation between Germany and France that has been going on for nearly half a century.
WWII was a long time ago, things change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813212</id>
	<title>Actually not that bad of a suggestion.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1263812340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not because Microsoft sucks per say but because computer security is becoming a classic monoculture problem.<br>IE is such a valuable target because of the number of users.<br>The greater the variation in software the less valuable each exploit becomes.<br>Let's face it most people will not change so saying that everybody should change will probably get you 30\%<br>A very real problem is there is only three browser engines at this time Geko, Webkit, and IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not because Microsoft sucks per say but because computer security is becoming a classic monoculture problem.IE is such a valuable target because of the number of users.The greater the variation in software the less valuable each exploit becomes.Let 's face it most people will not change so saying that everybody should change will probably get you 30 \ % A very real problem is there is only three browser engines at this time Geko , Webkit , and IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not because Microsoft sucks per say but because computer security is becoming a classic monoculture problem.IE is such a valuable target because of the number of users.The greater the variation in software the less valuable each exploit becomes.Let's face it most people will not change so saying that everybody should change will probably get you 30\%A very real problem is there is only three browser engines at this time Geko, Webkit, and IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813830</id>
	<title>Presumably</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263815520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably this means the French government want people to use IE6, since they automatically do the opposite to what they're told?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably this means the French government want people to use IE6 , since they automatically do the opposite to what they 're told ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably this means the French government want people to use IE6, since they automatically do the opposite to what they're told?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815106</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>shallot</author>
	<datestamp>1263824280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're right, people aren't upgrading - because that costs money and the mantra "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" trumps all when it comes to finances.</p></div><p>When people don't upgrade, they by and large eventually become hosts to all sorts of abusive and/or outright illegal behaviour, that ends up hurting the rest of us - financially. Ultimately the question is how long does the society tolerate this kind of a dissipated financial loss before it becomes intolerable, and then acts to force that loss back to the people whose behaviour is unacceptable, in the form they understand best - fines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , people are n't upgrading - because that costs money and the mantra " If it ai n't broke , do n't fix it " trumps all when it comes to finances.When people do n't upgrade , they by and large eventually become hosts to all sorts of abusive and/or outright illegal behaviour , that ends up hurting the rest of us - financially .
Ultimately the question is how long does the society tolerate this kind of a dissipated financial loss before it becomes intolerable , and then acts to force that loss back to the people whose behaviour is unacceptable , in the form they understand best - fines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, people aren't upgrading - because that costs money and the mantra "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" trumps all when it comes to finances.When people don't upgrade, they by and large eventually become hosts to all sorts of abusive and/or outright illegal behaviour, that ends up hurting the rest of us - financially.
Ultimately the question is how long does the society tolerate this kind of a dissipated financial loss before it becomes intolerable, and then acts to force that loss back to the people whose behaviour is unacceptable, in the form they understand best - fines.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813970</id>
	<title>Frisky French</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1263816240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>France and Germany agree on something?</i></p><p><i>The IE threat must be greater than previously imagined. Or...something.<br></i></p><p>France just hadn't surrendered to anyone in a little while and were getting frisky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>France and Germany agree on something ? The IE threat must be greater than previously imagined .
Or...something.France just had n't surrendered to anyone in a little while and were getting frisky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>France and Germany agree on something?The IE threat must be greater than previously imagined.
Or...something.France just hadn't surrendered to anyone in a little while and were getting frisky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813684</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263814620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, it goes like this:</p><p>France: Germany! Do as I say!<br>Germany: Yes, yes, dear god yes, just please don&rsquo;t call us Nazis!<br>Same thing with the USA, UK and doubly so with Israel.</p><p>And then some German comes, and calls the government Nazi anyway!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>It drove them so far off the left that we can basically say that with the recent totalitarian tendencies, it &ldquo;wrapped around&rdquo;. ^^<br>(Talking about the p.c. media and politics reality here. Not about what the man on the street thinks. We&rsquo;re pretty normal.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , it goes like this : France : Germany !
Do as I say ! Germany : Yes , yes , dear god yes , just please don    t call us Nazis ! Same thing with the USA , UK and doubly so with Israel.And then some German comes , and calls the government Nazi anyway !
; ) It drove them so far off the left that we can basically say that with the recent totalitarian tendencies , it    wrapped around    .
^ ^ ( Talking about the p.c .
media and politics reality here .
Not about what the man on the street thinks .
We    re pretty normal .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, it goes like this:France: Germany!
Do as I say!Germany: Yes, yes, dear god yes, just please don’t call us Nazis!Same thing with the USA, UK and doubly so with Israel.And then some German comes, and calls the government Nazi anyway!
;)It drove them so far off the left that we can basically say that with the recent totalitarian tendencies, it “wrapped around”.
^^(Talking about the p.c.
media and politics reality here.
Not about what the man on the street thinks.
We’re pretty normal.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813380</id>
	<title>If only the US could...</title>
	<author>Andy Jensen</author>
	<datestamp>1263813240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That makes Germany and France. If only the US would do the same, as there are too many na&#239;ve people who don't even know there are other superior web browsers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That makes Germany and France .
If only the US would do the same , as there are too many na   ve people who do n't even know there are other superior web browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That makes Germany and France.
If only the US would do the same, as there are too many naïve people who don't even know there are other superior web browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814892</id>
	<title>Reputation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263822780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE's reputation is terrible.<br>It's so bad that it's tainting all their other softwares.<br>On the contrary, Google is really working hard to create a strong brand.</p><p>Microsoft should not declare that IE8 is one of the most secure browsers (even if it's partially true).<br>People don't even know how to differentiate between IE6 and IE8 !<br>In my company, some people uses IE and google our company name to get to our homepage !</p><p>Microsoft should instead try to rename the browser to something like IEasy, or whatever, like they did with Vista.<br>Then once the new browser will be completely hacked, rename it to something like IE10, so that everybody will have forgotten the terrible brand.</p><p>Anyway, it's entirely their fault that Web development became such a nightmare, and forced large companies to keep IE6 due to the ugly ActiveX components.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 's reputation is terrible.It 's so bad that it 's tainting all their other softwares.On the contrary , Google is really working hard to create a strong brand.Microsoft should not declare that IE8 is one of the most secure browsers ( even if it 's partially true ) .People do n't even know how to differentiate between IE6 and IE8 ! In my company , some people uses IE and google our company name to get to our homepage ! Microsoft should instead try to rename the browser to something like IEasy , or whatever , like they did with Vista.Then once the new browser will be completely hacked , rename it to something like IE10 , so that everybody will have forgotten the terrible brand.Anyway , it 's entirely their fault that Web development became such a nightmare , and forced large companies to keep IE6 due to the ugly ActiveX components .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE's reputation is terrible.It's so bad that it's tainting all their other softwares.On the contrary, Google is really working hard to create a strong brand.Microsoft should not declare that IE8 is one of the most secure browsers (even if it's partially true).People don't even know how to differentiate between IE6 and IE8 !In my company, some people uses IE and google our company name to get to our homepage !Microsoft should instead try to rename the browser to something like IEasy, or whatever, like they did with Vista.Then once the new browser will be completely hacked, rename it to something like IE10, so that everybody will have forgotten the terrible brand.Anyway, it's entirely their fault that Web development became such a nightmare, and forced large companies to keep IE6 due to the ugly ActiveX components.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813352</id>
	<title>please stop using ie6</title>
	<author>chentiangemalc</author>
	<datestamp>1263813120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes people should stop using IE 6, besides the horrible interface, many new websites don't display correctly in it, it is a browser dating back to 2001 and outdated by now, 2 versions behind current Microsoft product. People with windows updates should already be using a more secure browser IE 7 or IE 8, or one of their choice.

And although IE6 has been significantly attacked - switching to other browsers does not make you immune, Chrome, Safari, Firefox have all had security flaws.

IE8 holds up well to other browsers re <a href="http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/Q309\_Browser\_Security\_Summary\_Final.pdf" title="nsslabs.com" rel="nofollow">http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/Q309\_Browser\_Security\_Summary\_Final.pdf</a> [nsslabs.com]

Also there are some social engineering style attacks that no browser currently protects against completely - sites that people are fooled into believing they are legitimate and passing personal details/etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes people should stop using IE 6 , besides the horrible interface , many new websites do n't display correctly in it , it is a browser dating back to 2001 and outdated by now , 2 versions behind current Microsoft product .
People with windows updates should already be using a more secure browser IE 7 or IE 8 , or one of their choice .
And although IE6 has been significantly attacked - switching to other browsers does not make you immune , Chrome , Safari , Firefox have all had security flaws .
IE8 holds up well to other browsers re http : //nsslabs.com/test-reports/Q309 \ _Browser \ _Security \ _Summary \ _Final.pdf [ nsslabs.com ] Also there are some social engineering style attacks that no browser currently protects against completely - sites that people are fooled into believing they are legitimate and passing personal details/etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes people should stop using IE 6, besides the horrible interface, many new websites don't display correctly in it, it is a browser dating back to 2001 and outdated by now, 2 versions behind current Microsoft product.
People with windows updates should already be using a more secure browser IE 7 or IE 8, or one of their choice.
And although IE6 has been significantly attacked - switching to other browsers does not make you immune, Chrome, Safari, Firefox have all had security flaws.
IE8 holds up well to other browsers re http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/Q309\_Browser\_Security\_Summary\_Final.pdf [nsslabs.com]

Also there are some social engineering style attacks that no browser currently protects against completely - sites that people are fooled into believing they are legitimate and passing personal details/etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814970</id>
	<title>Re:Actually not that bad of a suggestion.</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1263823440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>parent hit nail on the head, mod up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>parent hit nail on the head , mod up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>parent hit nail on the head, mod up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814038</id>
	<title>What a bunch of apologist shills</title>
	<author>Dracos</author>
	<datestamp>1263816720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not using something that is famously known to be broken is a bad idea?  Uh, sure.</p><p>I don't know who Tony Bradley is (and I'm not really interested), but TFA explains who George Kurtz is, and my thinking is that McAfee's entire business model is based on the fact that MS products are insecure and broad targets.  Every time a PC gets Windows replaced, he loses a potential customer.  Every time Windows gets malware, his existence is justified.</p><p>IE has several critical flaws, some of which have been unpatched for years.  Recommending to use a known unsafe browser is little different than arguing cars don't need seat belts, or OSHA is a waste, or whatever else flies in the face of safety in a given context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not using something that is famously known to be broken is a bad idea ?
Uh , sure.I do n't know who Tony Bradley is ( and I 'm not really interested ) , but TFA explains who George Kurtz is , and my thinking is that McAfee 's entire business model is based on the fact that MS products are insecure and broad targets .
Every time a PC gets Windows replaced , he loses a potential customer .
Every time Windows gets malware , his existence is justified.IE has several critical flaws , some of which have been unpatched for years .
Recommending to use a known unsafe browser is little different than arguing cars do n't need seat belts , or OSHA is a waste , or whatever else flies in the face of safety in a given context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not using something that is famously known to be broken is a bad idea?
Uh, sure.I don't know who Tony Bradley is (and I'm not really interested), but TFA explains who George Kurtz is, and my thinking is that McAfee's entire business model is based on the fact that MS products are insecure and broad targets.
Every time a PC gets Windows replaced, he loses a potential customer.
Every time Windows gets malware, his existence is justified.IE has several critical flaws, some of which have been unpatched for years.
Recommending to use a known unsafe browser is little different than arguing cars don't need seat belts, or OSHA is a waste, or whatever else flies in the face of safety in a given context.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814014</id>
	<title>IE8 Not vulnerable? Microsoft seems to think it is</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1263816540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> But, although IE6 has been the source of the attacks until now, Microsoft's advisory admits that both IE7 and IE8 are vulnerable to the same flaw, even on Windows 7.</p></div><p>Someone needs to do a lot better research when writing these articles or posting them to Slashdot or both.

</p><p>THIS is blatantly wrong:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft still insists IE8 is the 'most secure browser on the market' and that <b>they believe IE6 is the only browser susceptible to the flaw</b>. However, security researchers warned that could soon change, and recommended considering alternative browsers as well."</p></div><p>Heck, simply reading Slashdot would have turned up this:
<br> <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/18/1343250/Microsoft-Says-Upgrade-To-IE8-Even-Though-Its-Vulnerable" title="slashdot.org">Slashdot Article on this</a> [slashdot.org]


</p><p>Or this from <b>Microsoft themselves</b> which states even Microsoft believe no such thing.
<br> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/979352.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Microsoft Admits IE7 and IE8 are vulnerable to this too</a> [microsoft.com]
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Our investigation so far has shown that Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 4 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 is not affected, and that Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, and Internet Explorer 6, <b>Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8 on supported editions of Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2 are vulnerable</b>.</p></div><p>I posted something similar about this days ago on yet another similar topic, but was laughed at by the MS/IE zealots who claim Microsoft said only IE6 is vulnerable... so, since they cant read obviously, there it is again... with the relevant section BOLDED this time.

</p><p>C'mon folks, these RCEs are not new stuff, and seem to exist in EVERY version of IE since the beginning of time till now with "patches" that never fully address the issue (hence, as MICROSOFT themselves noted, this issue is... well... still an issue... even for IE7 and IE8).

</p><p>Their lame (see story link above) answer that people should upgrade to IE8 as if that was the solution to <b>this</b> problem is idiotic. Yeah, people should upgrade to IE8 (if their machines can actually run it - some of my clients have older, slower machines and no budget to replace them)... but Microsoft should also be working on actually fixing all the RCE exploits and buffer issues in the IE line.

</p><p>Regardless, my point is, with so much coverage over this (on Slashdot alone), you'd think the "Story Approvers" or author would have gotten that glaringly misleading (and incorrect) point correct. Oh well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , although IE6 has been the source of the attacks until now , Microsoft 's advisory admits that both IE7 and IE8 are vulnerable to the same flaw , even on Windows 7.Someone needs to do a lot better research when writing these articles or posting them to Slashdot or both .
THIS is blatantly wrong : Microsoft still insists IE8 is the 'most secure browser on the market ' and that they believe IE6 is the only browser susceptible to the flaw .
However , security researchers warned that could soon change , and recommended considering alternative browsers as well .
" Heck , simply reading Slashdot would have turned up this : Slashdot Article on this [ slashdot.org ] Or this from Microsoft themselves which states even Microsoft believe no such thing .
Microsoft Admits IE7 and IE8 are vulnerable to this too [ microsoft.com ] Our investigation so far has shown that Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 4 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 is not affected , and that Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 , and Internet Explorer 6 , Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8 on supported editions of Windows XP , Windows Server 2003 , Windows Vista , Windows Server 2008 , Windows 7 , and Windows Server 2008 R2 are vulnerable.I posted something similar about this days ago on yet another similar topic , but was laughed at by the MS/IE zealots who claim Microsoft said only IE6 is vulnerable... so , since they cant read obviously , there it is again... with the relevant section BOLDED this time .
C'mon folks , these RCEs are not new stuff , and seem to exist in EVERY version of IE since the beginning of time till now with " patches " that never fully address the issue ( hence , as MICROSOFT themselves noted , this issue is... well... still an issue... even for IE7 and IE8 ) .
Their lame ( see story link above ) answer that people should upgrade to IE8 as if that was the solution to this problem is idiotic .
Yeah , people should upgrade to IE8 ( if their machines can actually run it - some of my clients have older , slower machines and no budget to replace them ) ... but Microsoft should also be working on actually fixing all the RCE exploits and buffer issues in the IE line .
Regardless , my point is , with so much coverage over this ( on Slashdot alone ) , you 'd think the " Story Approvers " or author would have gotten that glaringly misleading ( and incorrect ) point correct .
Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But, although IE6 has been the source of the attacks until now, Microsoft's advisory admits that both IE7 and IE8 are vulnerable to the same flaw, even on Windows 7.Someone needs to do a lot better research when writing these articles or posting them to Slashdot or both.
THIS is blatantly wrong:Microsoft still insists IE8 is the 'most secure browser on the market' and that they believe IE6 is the only browser susceptible to the flaw.
However, security researchers warned that could soon change, and recommended considering alternative browsers as well.
"Heck, simply reading Slashdot would have turned up this:
 Slashdot Article on this [slashdot.org]


Or this from Microsoft themselves which states even Microsoft believe no such thing.
Microsoft Admits IE7 and IE8 are vulnerable to this too [microsoft.com]
Our investigation so far has shown that Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 4 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 is not affected, and that Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, and Internet Explorer 6, Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8 on supported editions of Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008 R2 are vulnerable.I posted something similar about this days ago on yet another similar topic, but was laughed at by the MS/IE zealots who claim Microsoft said only IE6 is vulnerable... so, since they cant read obviously, there it is again... with the relevant section BOLDED this time.
C'mon folks, these RCEs are not new stuff, and seem to exist in EVERY version of IE since the beginning of time till now with "patches" that never fully address the issue (hence, as MICROSOFT themselves noted, this issue is... well... still an issue... even for IE7 and IE8).
Their lame (see story link above) answer that people should upgrade to IE8 as if that was the solution to this problem is idiotic.
Yeah, people should upgrade to IE8 (if their machines can actually run it - some of my clients have older, slower machines and no budget to replace them)... but Microsoft should also be working on actually fixing all the RCE exploits and buffer issues in the IE line.
Regardless, my point is, with so much coverage over this (on Slashdot alone), you'd think the "Story Approvers" or author would have gotten that glaringly misleading (and incorrect) point correct.
Oh well.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813428</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1263813420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not blaming MS for IE is like not blaming Ford for the Pinto.  In both cases the dangers of the product was/is well known.  The consumer knows that, in the case of IE, that one should be careful with dangerous sites,and the user should know those dangerous sites.  With the Pinto, it no real rear protection, so the driver should avoid other drivers that will collide with the rear of the car.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not blaming MS for IE is like not blaming Ford for the Pinto .
In both cases the dangers of the product was/is well known .
The consumer knows that , in the case of IE , that one should be careful with dangerous sites,and the user should know those dangerous sites .
With the Pinto , it no real rear protection , so the driver should avoid other drivers that will collide with the rear of the car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not blaming MS for IE is like not blaming Ford for the Pinto.
In both cases the dangers of the product was/is well known.
The consumer knows that, in the case of IE, that one should be careful with dangerous sites,and the user should know those dangerous sites.
With the Pinto, it no real rear protection, so the driver should avoid other drivers that will collide with the rear of the car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813654</id>
	<title>Re:Actually not that bad of a suggestion.</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1263814500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presto\_(layout\_engine)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presto\_(layout\_engine)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presto \ _ ( layout \ _engine ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presto\_(layout\_engine) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30831386</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the IE 'mentality'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264000680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, get rid of ActiveX.  It's the biggest hole in IE.  #2 is already in there (I think).  As for #3 and #5, absolutely.  There is no reason to not have those features in place.  The right-click thing happens to be one of my pet peeves, because I used to go forward and back using right-click until I got a mouse with more buttons.  I guess they're trying to "protect their source code" or something, which is asinine, because anyone with half of a brain (or even one-quarter of a brain) can get around that.  There's no way to protect interpreted-language source code unless you just don't distribute it (at least, not to my knowledge).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , get rid of ActiveX .
It 's the biggest hole in IE .
# 2 is already in there ( I think ) .
As for # 3 and # 5 , absolutely .
There is no reason to not have those features in place .
The right-click thing happens to be one of my pet peeves , because I used to go forward and back using right-click until I got a mouse with more buttons .
I guess they 're trying to " protect their source code " or something , which is asinine , because anyone with half of a brain ( or even one-quarter of a brain ) can get around that .
There 's no way to protect interpreted-language source code unless you just do n't distribute it ( at least , not to my knowledge ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, get rid of ActiveX.
It's the biggest hole in IE.
#2 is already in there (I think).
As for #3 and #5, absolutely.
There is no reason to not have those features in place.
The right-click thing happens to be one of my pet peeves, because I used to go forward and back using right-click until I got a mouse with more buttons.
I guess they're trying to "protect their source code" or something, which is asinine, because anyone with half of a brain (or even one-quarter of a brain) can get around that.
There's no way to protect interpreted-language source code unless you just don't distribute it (at least, not to my knowledge).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813860</id>
	<title>It'll never work...</title>
	<author>pookemon</author>
	<datestamp>1263815640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Stop using IE"<br> <br>
Ok. I'll stop using IE8.  But the problem wasn't in IE8 - it was in IE6 - so it was brought about by people who are using a version of IE that was replaced 1 to 2 years ago.<br> <br>
"Microsoft didn't patch the zero day bug"<br> <br>
Wouldn't matter if they had - these people are using IE6.  Technically they did patch it - in IE7 and IE8 - and the people using IE6 haven't upgraded to the new <i>free</i> version - so what good would a patch do?  Sure, MS could have withdrawn the installer and people could have upgraded using a new installer - but that would only reduce the number of people using it - it wouldn't eliminate it (there'd be all those disks floating around with IE6 as part of the operating installation).<br> <br>
And all this guff about "IE6 ruined the world" seems like crap anyway because if it wasn't IE6 then it'd be Acrobat, or Safari or Firefox or Opera or Chrome.  If we all move to  then they'd target .  It's just that IE6 is still in use by a significant number of morons who probably don't have a virus scanner let alone any idea of why they shouldn't click the message that states "Your computer appears to have a virus...".</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Stop using IE " Ok. I 'll stop using IE8 .
But the problem was n't in IE8 - it was in IE6 - so it was brought about by people who are using a version of IE that was replaced 1 to 2 years ago .
" Microsoft did n't patch the zero day bug " Would n't matter if they had - these people are using IE6 .
Technically they did patch it - in IE7 and IE8 - and the people using IE6 have n't upgraded to the new free version - so what good would a patch do ?
Sure , MS could have withdrawn the installer and people could have upgraded using a new installer - but that would only reduce the number of people using it - it would n't eliminate it ( there 'd be all those disks floating around with IE6 as part of the operating installation ) .
And all this guff about " IE6 ruined the world " seems like crap anyway because if it was n't IE6 then it 'd be Acrobat , or Safari or Firefox or Opera or Chrome .
If we all move to then they 'd target .
It 's just that IE6 is still in use by a significant number of morons who probably do n't have a virus scanner let alone any idea of why they should n't click the message that states " Your computer appears to have a virus... " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Stop using IE" 
Ok. I'll stop using IE8.
But the problem wasn't in IE8 - it was in IE6 - so it was brought about by people who are using a version of IE that was replaced 1 to 2 years ago.
"Microsoft didn't patch the zero day bug" 
Wouldn't matter if they had - these people are using IE6.
Technically they did patch it - in IE7 and IE8 - and the people using IE6 haven't upgraded to the new free version - so what good would a patch do?
Sure, MS could have withdrawn the installer and people could have upgraded using a new installer - but that would only reduce the number of people using it - it wouldn't eliminate it (there'd be all those disks floating around with IE6 as part of the operating installation).
And all this guff about "IE6 ruined the world" seems like crap anyway because if it wasn't IE6 then it'd be Acrobat, or Safari or Firefox or Opera or Chrome.
If we all move to  then they'd target .
It's just that IE6 is still in use by a significant number of morons who probably don't have a virus scanner let alone any idea of why they shouldn't click the message that states "Your computer appears to have a virus...".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813242</id>
	<title>Don't switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263812520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"You may also have web-based applications that don't work well, or even at all, unless they are accessed with Internet Explorer. That's not going to be good for productivity. And finally, what if your replacement browser itself turns out to contain a vulnerability? Are you going to switch again?"</p></div><p>That's the sort of shallow, thoughtless attitude that got you stuck with IE6 in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You may also have web-based applications that do n't work well , or even at all , unless they are accessed with Internet Explorer .
That 's not going to be good for productivity .
And finally , what if your replacement browser itself turns out to contain a vulnerability ?
Are you going to switch again ?
" That 's the sort of shallow , thoughtless attitude that got you stuck with IE6 in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You may also have web-based applications that don't work well, or even at all, unless they are accessed with Internet Explorer.
That's not going to be good for productivity.
And finally, what if your replacement browser itself turns out to contain a vulnerability?
Are you going to switch again?
"That's the sort of shallow, thoughtless attitude that got you stuck with IE6 in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813570</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1263814080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess what I did today at work?</p><p>I had to test security products. (since we're deciding to change antivirus vendors) So I got three machines (each with F-secure, Sophos and Vipre), went to my favorite site in the world (malwaredomainlist.com) and downloaded the first link in the list, infecting all 3 PC's with a virus in udner 5 minutes.</p><p>Guess which Browser I was using?</p><p>(Hint. It wasn't IE)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess what I did today at work ? I had to test security products .
( since we 're deciding to change antivirus vendors ) So I got three machines ( each with F-secure , Sophos and Vipre ) , went to my favorite site in the world ( malwaredomainlist.com ) and downloaded the first link in the list , infecting all 3 PC 's with a virus in udner 5 minutes.Guess which Browser I was using ? ( Hint .
It was n't IE )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess what I did today at work?I had to test security products.
(since we're deciding to change antivirus vendors) So I got three machines (each with F-secure, Sophos and Vipre), went to my favorite site in the world (malwaredomainlist.com) and downloaded the first link in the list, infecting all 3 PC's with a virus in udner 5 minutes.Guess which Browser I was using?(Hint.
It wasn't IE)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813716</id>
	<title>Mixed Message</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1263814800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't Kill the Messenger: Blaming IE for Attacks is Dangerous</i></p><p>Don't obfuscate the message. Blaming IE for being susceptible to attacks is entirely valid.</p><p>So is blaming Mozilla, Chrome, Opera, Konquerer, and Safari when they are vulnerable.</p><p>It's all nice and tidy to say "The attackers are to blame." But we don't have control over them. We do have control over which software we use. And if we continually abandon less secure software for more secure alternatives, we will have a continually improving software ecosystem. That will not always mean abandoning IE (well, it <i>may</i> not always mean abandoning IE -- seriously, someday IE might be the most secure option -- stop laughing, it could happen, hypothetically), but it does mean always abandoning whoever fucked up most egregiously most recently. Feedback works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't Kill the Messenger : Blaming IE for Attacks is DangerousDo n't obfuscate the message .
Blaming IE for being susceptible to attacks is entirely valid.So is blaming Mozilla , Chrome , Opera , Konquerer , and Safari when they are vulnerable.It 's all nice and tidy to say " The attackers are to blame .
" But we do n't have control over them .
We do have control over which software we use .
And if we continually abandon less secure software for more secure alternatives , we will have a continually improving software ecosystem .
That will not always mean abandoning IE ( well , it may not always mean abandoning IE -- seriously , someday IE might be the most secure option -- stop laughing , it could happen , hypothetically ) , but it does mean always abandoning whoever fucked up most egregiously most recently .
Feedback works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't Kill the Messenger: Blaming IE for Attacks is DangerousDon't obfuscate the message.
Blaming IE for being susceptible to attacks is entirely valid.So is blaming Mozilla, Chrome, Opera, Konquerer, and Safari when they are vulnerable.It's all nice and tidy to say "The attackers are to blame.
" But we don't have control over them.
We do have control over which software we use.
And if we continually abandon less secure software for more secure alternatives, we will have a continually improving software ecosystem.
That will not always mean abandoning IE (well, it may not always mean abandoning IE -- seriously, someday IE might be the most secure option -- stop laughing, it could happen, hypothetically), but it does mean always abandoning whoever fucked up most egregiously most recently.
Feedback works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813748</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a second....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263815040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nah, that's not that far fetched. Now if *England* and France agreed on something... Well, thats one of the signs of the apocalypse</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nah , that 's not that far fetched .
Now if * England * and France agreed on something... Well , thats one of the signs of the apocalypse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nah, that's not that far fetched.
Now if *England* and France agreed on something... Well, thats one of the signs of the apocalypse</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814756</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1263821820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, people aren't upgrading - because that costs money and the mantra "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" trumps all when it comes to finances.</p><p>There are plenty of machines and tasks out there that Windows 2000 is still perfectly adequate for. Replacing Win2K with WinXP or later is a non-zero cost (both in labor and licensing) and may trigger many other software and hardware upgrades or replacements. IE6 is the last version available for Win2K and I'm sure many Win2K installations won't be replaced until complete hardware failure occurs.</p><p>Granted, at my office we can get away with installing Firefox on all the Win2K boxes - but that's not a solution for everyone as many of those stupid "Enterprise" level web apps only work on IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , people are n't upgrading - because that costs money and the mantra " If it ai n't broke , do n't fix it " trumps all when it comes to finances.There are plenty of machines and tasks out there that Windows 2000 is still perfectly adequate for .
Replacing Win2K with WinXP or later is a non-zero cost ( both in labor and licensing ) and may trigger many other software and hardware upgrades or replacements .
IE6 is the last version available for Win2K and I 'm sure many Win2K installations wo n't be replaced until complete hardware failure occurs.Granted , at my office we can get away with installing Firefox on all the Win2K boxes - but that 's not a solution for everyone as many of those stupid " Enterprise " level web apps only work on IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, people aren't upgrading - because that costs money and the mantra "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" trumps all when it comes to finances.There are plenty of machines and tasks out there that Windows 2000 is still perfectly adequate for.
Replacing Win2K with WinXP or later is a non-zero cost (both in labor and licensing) and may trigger many other software and hardware upgrades or replacements.
IE6 is the last version available for Win2K and I'm sure many Win2K installations won't be replaced until complete hardware failure occurs.Granted, at my office we can get away with installing Firefox on all the Win2K boxes - but that's not a solution for everyone as many of those stupid "Enterprise" level web apps only work on IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815170</id>
	<title>od course they are saying IE8 is better</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1263825060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that means everyone with Win2k/XP gotta buy a new PC or get a retail copy of windows-vista/7 = which means more money in microsoft's coffers, fsck em, go get a copy of Linux  for free!</htmltext>
<tokenext>that means everyone with Win2k/XP got ta buy a new PC or get a retail copy of windows-vista/7 = which means more money in microsoft 's coffers , fsck em , go get a copy of Linux for free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that means everyone with Win2k/XP gotta buy a new PC or get a retail copy of windows-vista/7 = which means more money in microsoft's coffers, fsck em, go get a copy of Linux  for free!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814890</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Gandalf\_Greyhame</author>
	<datestamp>1263822720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The simplest solution to the problem would be the following:</p><p>Insert a drive by download into a popular webpage that will cause IE to download, install and set to default Firefox. Extra points for disabling IE.</p><p>I am sure that someone here is able to do that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Disclaimer: The above is merely me thinking out loud. I accept no responsibility for anyone doing anything like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The simplest solution to the problem would be the following : Insert a drive by download into a popular webpage that will cause IE to download , install and set to default Firefox .
Extra points for disabling IE.I am sure that someone here is able to do that ; ) Disclaimer : The above is merely me thinking out loud .
I accept no responsibility for anyone doing anything like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simplest solution to the problem would be the following:Insert a drive by download into a popular webpage that will cause IE to download, install and set to default Firefox.
Extra points for disabling IE.I am sure that someone here is able to do that ;)Disclaimer: The above is merely me thinking out loud.
I accept no responsibility for anyone doing anything like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813936</id>
	<title>PCWorld</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1263816000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"PCWorld seems to be taking the opposite stance arguing that blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security."</p><p>Yeah, of course they would argue this. They get major advertising dollars from someone affected by such recommendations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" PCWorld seems to be taking the opposite stance arguing that blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security .
" Yeah , of course they would argue this .
They get major advertising dollars from someone affected by such recommendations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"PCWorld seems to be taking the opposite stance arguing that blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security.
"Yeah, of course they would argue this.
They get major advertising dollars from someone affected by such recommendations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815874</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263832920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't moved past IE 6 because I use Firefox. I have used IE to browse perhaps thrice in the last six years, and that was restricted to Windows Update. Some of the vulnerabilities in IE can still affect me because of how Microsoft has lovingly entwined it so intimately with their operating system. I could update IE and (possibly? probably?) get rid of this problem. I take the risk knowing the cost and fully prepared to clean up the ensuing chaos should the shit hit the fan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't moved past IE 6 because I use Firefox .
I have used IE to browse perhaps thrice in the last six years , and that was restricted to Windows Update .
Some of the vulnerabilities in IE can still affect me because of how Microsoft has lovingly entwined it so intimately with their operating system .
I could update IE and ( possibly ?
probably ? ) get rid of this problem .
I take the risk knowing the cost and fully prepared to clean up the ensuing chaos should the shit hit the fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't moved past IE 6 because I use Firefox.
I have used IE to browse perhaps thrice in the last six years, and that was restricted to Windows Update.
Some of the vulnerabilities in IE can still affect me because of how Microsoft has lovingly entwined it so intimately with their operating system.
I could update IE and (possibly?
probably?) get rid of this problem.
I take the risk knowing the cost and fully prepared to clean up the ensuing chaos should the shit hit the fan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814230</id>
	<title>Running 2 revisions out of date?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263817740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>For any software, if you're running stuff that is basically 12 years out of date, you should expect your setup to be exploitable.  You don't see a lot of people running MacOS 8, early revisions of Slackware, or Netscape 5.5 anymore, right?  Neglecting to update IE is about the stupidest thing anyone with some regard for their personal security could put off.  It's easily the most exploited piece of software in the history of...software.  That's what having a near 100\% dominance in the very sketchy playing field of the late 90's/early 00's Internet does for you.  I'm no Microsoft fan, but anyone who thinks that code that was written 12 years ago is perfectly fine to use nowadays...switching to another browser isn't going to fix their problem.  Medication and a good shrink will fix their problem.  And maybe a Computer Science course or two.  If you never updated the virus defs in your virus scanner...and you got a virus...switching virus scanners isn't going to fix the fact that you're too undisciplined to wait a few seconds and let your virus defs download no matter what setup you use.  If people won't update from IE6, you can bet they won't update any other browser they install, either.
<br> <br>
Sorry, but if you get exploited running IE6, I have absolutely NO pity for you.  You're just plain stupid, and your stupidity most likely has caused you to infect other systems probably more than once.  You're like a driver who plows down a couple margaritas before you go out driving on a Sunday afternoon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For any software , if you 're running stuff that is basically 12 years out of date , you should expect your setup to be exploitable .
You do n't see a lot of people running MacOS 8 , early revisions of Slackware , or Netscape 5.5 anymore , right ?
Neglecting to update IE is about the stupidest thing anyone with some regard for their personal security could put off .
It 's easily the most exploited piece of software in the history of...software .
That 's what having a near 100 \ % dominance in the very sketchy playing field of the late 90 's/early 00 's Internet does for you .
I 'm no Microsoft fan , but anyone who thinks that code that was written 12 years ago is perfectly fine to use nowadays...switching to another browser is n't going to fix their problem .
Medication and a good shrink will fix their problem .
And maybe a Computer Science course or two .
If you never updated the virus defs in your virus scanner...and you got a virus...switching virus scanners is n't going to fix the fact that you 're too undisciplined to wait a few seconds and let your virus defs download no matter what setup you use .
If people wo n't update from IE6 , you can bet they wo n't update any other browser they install , either .
Sorry , but if you get exploited running IE6 , I have absolutely NO pity for you .
You 're just plain stupid , and your stupidity most likely has caused you to infect other systems probably more than once .
You 're like a driver who plows down a couple margaritas before you go out driving on a Sunday afternoon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For any software, if you're running stuff that is basically 12 years out of date, you should expect your setup to be exploitable.
You don't see a lot of people running MacOS 8, early revisions of Slackware, or Netscape 5.5 anymore, right?
Neglecting to update IE is about the stupidest thing anyone with some regard for their personal security could put off.
It's easily the most exploited piece of software in the history of...software.
That's what having a near 100\% dominance in the very sketchy playing field of the late 90's/early 00's Internet does for you.
I'm no Microsoft fan, but anyone who thinks that code that was written 12 years ago is perfectly fine to use nowadays...switching to another browser isn't going to fix their problem.
Medication and a good shrink will fix their problem.
And maybe a Computer Science course or two.
If you never updated the virus defs in your virus scanner...and you got a virus...switching virus scanners isn't going to fix the fact that you're too undisciplined to wait a few seconds and let your virus defs download no matter what setup you use.
If people won't update from IE6, you can bet they won't update any other browser they install, either.
Sorry, but if you get exploited running IE6, I have absolutely NO pity for you.
You're just plain stupid, and your stupidity most likely has caused you to infect other systems probably more than once.
You're like a driver who plows down a couple margaritas before you go out driving on a Sunday afternoon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813462</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>blitzkrieg3</author>
	<datestamp>1263813540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're missing the whole crux of their argument. Yes, IE was the source of at least one of the security holes, but France and Germany are mandating switching as though it's some sort of panacea. IE was just one link in the chain of exploits used in the attack. Maybe destroying one link in the chain destroys the chain, but it is more likely that they will find a different link to continue the attack. Like maybe a zero day in Firefox or one of these <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox35.html" title="mozilla.org">known exploits.</a> [mozilla.org]
<br> <br>
I truly believe that Firefox and probably Chrome is a more secure browser than IE, and I completely agree with the recommendation from France and Germany. But even if Google had no IE they would not have been completely protected from the attacks, and both countries aren't completely protected by some memo mandating the end of IE. To think so is foolishness. Don't let one poorly written PCWorld article convince you otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're missing the whole crux of their argument .
Yes , IE was the source of at least one of the security holes , but France and Germany are mandating switching as though it 's some sort of panacea .
IE was just one link in the chain of exploits used in the attack .
Maybe destroying one link in the chain destroys the chain , but it is more likely that they will find a different link to continue the attack .
Like maybe a zero day in Firefox or one of these known exploits .
[ mozilla.org ] I truly believe that Firefox and probably Chrome is a more secure browser than IE , and I completely agree with the recommendation from France and Germany .
But even if Google had no IE they would not have been completely protected from the attacks , and both countries are n't completely protected by some memo mandating the end of IE .
To think so is foolishness .
Do n't let one poorly written PCWorld article convince you otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're missing the whole crux of their argument.
Yes, IE was the source of at least one of the security holes, but France and Germany are mandating switching as though it's some sort of panacea.
IE was just one link in the chain of exploits used in the attack.
Maybe destroying one link in the chain destroys the chain, but it is more likely that they will find a different link to continue the attack.
Like maybe a zero day in Firefox or one of these known exploits.
[mozilla.org]
 
I truly believe that Firefox and probably Chrome is a more secure browser than IE, and I completely agree with the recommendation from France and Germany.
But even if Google had no IE they would not have been completely protected from the attacks, and both countries aren't completely protected by some memo mandating the end of IE.
To think so is foolishness.
Don't let one poorly written PCWorld article convince you otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814244</id>
	<title>Re:This just in...</title>
	<author>.deepershade</author>
	<datestamp>1263817860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>US Gov recommends citizens not to question anything, ever, and promptly bend over and take it. FF8Jake complies and his farts are never audible again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>US Gov recommends citizens not to question anything , ever , and promptly bend over and take it .
FF8Jake complies and his farts are never audible again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US Gov recommends citizens not to question anything, ever, and promptly bend over and take it.
FF8Jake complies and his farts are never audible again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814880</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the IE 'mentality'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263822660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this post is full of technical error</p><p>yet it is modded Insightful</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this post is full of technical erroryet it is modded Insightful</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this post is full of technical erroryet it is modded Insightful</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813540</id>
	<title>Strawman</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1263813960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. This sounds like the old "criminals can pick weak locks so security is worthless" fallacy. Sure any door can be opened, but that doesn't mean you should just remove the door.
</p><p>That said, even if it was true, I'd <b>still</b> want people to abandon IE. Anything that gets people on browsers that render stuff half-decently without gobs of extra code is good.
</p><p>Even getting people to IE8 would be a big improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
This sounds like the old " criminals can pick weak locks so security is worthless " fallacy .
Sure any door can be opened , but that does n't mean you should just remove the door .
That said , even if it was true , I 'd still want people to abandon IE .
Anything that gets people on browsers that render stuff half-decently without gobs of extra code is good .
Even getting people to IE8 would be a big improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
This sounds like the old "criminals can pick weak locks so security is worthless" fallacy.
Sure any door can be opened, but that doesn't mean you should just remove the door.
That said, even if it was true, I'd still want people to abandon IE.
Anything that gets people on browsers that render stuff half-decently without gobs of extra code is good.
Even getting people to IE8 would be a big improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813206</id>
	<title>False sense of security?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263812280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So where is the fix?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So where is the fix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where is the fix?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817332</id>
	<title>France, Germany nailed the kitten, forgot the cat</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1263896400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the one hand it's difficult not to be a bit gleeful in the face of the recommendations from France and Germany. On the other hand, none of the evidence on the (lack of) security in MS Explorer is exactly new, is it?
<p>
So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... should we conclude that this new advice is based on nothing more than some official reading the headlines on the Google hack with his breakfast, choking, getting egg all over his trousers, and wanting to explain why he had to change his trousers and was therefore late for work? Or is it really a case of someone finally seeing an opportunity to get support for a long-intended measure? I'd like to know, but I'm not optimistic.
</p><p>

Unfortunately they also seem to have overlooked a much bigger security hole:  MS Windows itself. Especially older versions, unpatched, un-firewalled, and incautiously administrated (in my guess this means about in 95\% of all home installations).
</p><p>
If they are at all serious about their "security warning", then why not set their mandatory ISP-snooping infrastructure to scanning for viruses, trojans, and malware too? That might actually help their citizens a lot more than scanning for child pornography or coded Bin-Laden C3 traffic.
</p><p>
And what about themselves? Why not mandate Open Source code vetting for any OS to be considered for government use? After all, they wouldn't buy proprietary encryption schemes either, would they? And why not institute a government-wide preference (not a mandate) for Open Source Office applications? And spend, say, 10\% of what they spend now on proprietary software on awarding contracts for supporting, maintaining, and improving said Open Source software so as to meet every last demand made on it in government? They would be looking at huge savings and very high returns.
</p><p>
Or would that be too radical?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand it 's difficult not to be a bit gleeful in the face of the recommendations from France and Germany .
On the other hand , none of the evidence on the ( lack of ) security in MS Explorer is exactly new , is it ?
So ... should we conclude that this new advice is based on nothing more than some official reading the headlines on the Google hack with his breakfast , choking , getting egg all over his trousers , and wanting to explain why he had to change his trousers and was therefore late for work ?
Or is it really a case of someone finally seeing an opportunity to get support for a long-intended measure ?
I 'd like to know , but I 'm not optimistic .
Unfortunately they also seem to have overlooked a much bigger security hole : MS Windows itself .
Especially older versions , unpatched , un-firewalled , and incautiously administrated ( in my guess this means about in 95 \ % of all home installations ) .
If they are at all serious about their " security warning " , then why not set their mandatory ISP-snooping infrastructure to scanning for viruses , trojans , and malware too ?
That might actually help their citizens a lot more than scanning for child pornography or coded Bin-Laden C3 traffic .
And what about themselves ?
Why not mandate Open Source code vetting for any OS to be considered for government use ?
After all , they would n't buy proprietary encryption schemes either , would they ?
And why not institute a government-wide preference ( not a mandate ) for Open Source Office applications ?
And spend , say , 10 \ % of what they spend now on proprietary software on awarding contracts for supporting , maintaining , and improving said Open Source software so as to meet every last demand made on it in government ?
They would be looking at huge savings and very high returns .
Or would that be too radical ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand it's difficult not to be a bit gleeful in the face of the recommendations from France and Germany.
On the other hand, none of the evidence on the (lack of) security in MS Explorer is exactly new, is it?
So ... should we conclude that this new advice is based on nothing more than some official reading the headlines on the Google hack with his breakfast, choking, getting egg all over his trousers, and wanting to explain why he had to change his trousers and was therefore late for work?
Or is it really a case of someone finally seeing an opportunity to get support for a long-intended measure?
I'd like to know, but I'm not optimistic.
Unfortunately they also seem to have overlooked a much bigger security hole:  MS Windows itself.
Especially older versions, unpatched, un-firewalled, and incautiously administrated (in my guess this means about in 95\% of all home installations).
If they are at all serious about their "security warning", then why not set their mandatory ISP-snooping infrastructure to scanning for viruses, trojans, and malware too?
That might actually help their citizens a lot more than scanning for child pornography or coded Bin-Laden C3 traffic.
And what about themselves?
Why not mandate Open Source code vetting for any OS to be considered for government use?
After all, they wouldn't buy proprietary encryption schemes either, would they?
And why not institute a government-wide preference (not a mandate) for Open Source Office applications?
And spend, say, 10\% of what they spend now on proprietary software on awarding contracts for supporting, maintaining, and improving said Open Source software so as to meet every last demand made on it in government?
They would be looking at huge savings and very high returns.
Or would that be too radical?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813166</id>
	<title>False sense of security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263812160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>PCWorld seems to be taking the opposite stance arguing that blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security.</p></div><p>
Well, of course they'd say that - they are running a PC/Windows/Microsoft magazine, after all.
<br> <br>
AppleWorld, on the other hand, has been blaming hacker attacks on Microsoft Windows for many years now - and the general population seems to agree with them, even though it does lead to a false sense of security in OSX.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PCWorld seems to be taking the opposite stance arguing that blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security .
Well , of course they 'd say that - they are running a PC/Windows/Microsoft magazine , after all .
AppleWorld , on the other hand , has been blaming hacker attacks on Microsoft Windows for many years now - and the general population seems to agree with them , even though it does lead to a false sense of security in OSX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PCWorld seems to be taking the opposite stance arguing that blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security.
Well, of course they'd say that - they are running a PC/Windows/Microsoft magazine, after all.
AppleWorld, on the other hand, has been blaming hacker attacks on Microsoft Windows for many years now - and the general population seems to agree with them, even though it does lead to a false sense of security in OSX.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813616</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Simon (S2)</author>
	<datestamp>1263814320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The main thing to keep in mind is that these attacks go beyond Internet Explorer and that simply switching browsers is not an adequate defense.</p></div><p>This is completely absurd FUD. </p></div><p>It's not. What they say is exactly correct: hat these attacks go beyond Internet Explorer and that simply switching browsers is not an adequate defense.<br>FF has flaws too. An adequate defense would be to install McAfee&#169; VirusScan Plus, McAfee&#169; Total Protection, McAfee&#169; Online Backup, McAfee&#169; SiteAdvisor Plus and McAfee&#169; Anti-Theft File Protection.<br>There! *NOW* you are protected!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main thing to keep in mind is that these attacks go beyond Internet Explorer and that simply switching browsers is not an adequate defense.This is completely absurd FUD .
It 's not .
What they say is exactly correct : hat these attacks go beyond Internet Explorer and that simply switching browsers is not an adequate defense.FF has flaws too .
An adequate defense would be to install McAfee   VirusScan Plus , McAfee   Total Protection , McAfee   Online Backup , McAfee   SiteAdvisor Plus and McAfee   Anti-Theft File Protection.There !
* NOW * you are protected !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main thing to keep in mind is that these attacks go beyond Internet Explorer and that simply switching browsers is not an adequate defense.This is completely absurd FUD.
It's not.
What they say is exactly correct: hat these attacks go beyond Internet Explorer and that simply switching browsers is not an adequate defense.FF has flaws too.
An adequate defense would be to install McAfee© VirusScan Plus, McAfee© Total Protection, McAfee© Online Backup, McAfee© SiteAdvisor Plus and McAfee© Anti-Theft File Protection.There!
*NOW* you are protected!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30820828</id>
	<title>Re:The Part I don't Get.</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1263923760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, Microsoft didn't get everything they wanted from IE (that was descomoditize the web), but they surely slowed things down. MS is running in self-destruct mode for a few years now, they will get irrelevant, but they want to make sure they get the most possible amount of money before that, and that means they want to delay things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , Microsoft did n't get everything they wanted from IE ( that was descomoditize the web ) , but they surely slowed things down .
MS is running in self-destruct mode for a few years now , they will get irrelevant , but they want to make sure they get the most possible amount of money before that , and that means they want to delay things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, Microsoft didn't get everything they wanted from IE (that was descomoditize the web), but they surely slowed things down.
MS is running in self-destruct mode for a few years now, they will get irrelevant, but they want to make sure they get the most possible amount of money before that, and that means they want to delay things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813406</id>
	<title>Healty variety of browsers</title>
	<author>Kyusaku Natsume</author>
	<datestamp>1263813360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It helps to force web developers to design their sites based on standards, not for the browser with the largest market share. I have many friends with Apple computers that use exclusively Firefox even when Safari on OS X is a very good browser. This helps a little to keep the overall security of the plataform up, since you can't be sure that all users of OS X also are users of Safari.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It helps to force web developers to design their sites based on standards , not for the browser with the largest market share .
I have many friends with Apple computers that use exclusively Firefox even when Safari on OS X is a very good browser .
This helps a little to keep the overall security of the plataform up , since you ca n't be sure that all users of OS X also are users of Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It helps to force web developers to design their sites based on standards, not for the browser with the largest market share.
I have many friends with Apple computers that use exclusively Firefox even when Safari on OS X is a very good browser.
This helps a little to keep the overall security of the plataform up, since you can't be sure that all users of OS X also are users of Safari.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813882</id>
	<title>Should we...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263815700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>boycott french kisses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>boycott french kisses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>boycott french kisses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814860</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>SpaceLifeForm</author>
	<datestamp>1263822480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Were you running with admin privileges?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were you running with admin privileges ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were you running with admin privileges?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814764</id>
	<title>Re:Don't switch?</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263821880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same reason that FORTRAN is still used worldwide. You pick a theory, and then you run with it. Changing theories willy-nilly along the way is, far more often than not, stupid.<br>
<br>
So after Gizmo #1 requires Thingamajig 6.0, Gizmo #2 is best to also require Thingamajig 6.0.<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...after all.. you have Thingamajig 6.0 deployed everywhere to support Gizmo #1.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same reason that FORTRAN is still used worldwide .
You pick a theory , and then you run with it .
Changing theories willy-nilly along the way is , far more often than not , stupid .
So after Gizmo # 1 requires Thingamajig 6.0 , Gizmo # 2 is best to also require Thingamajig 6.0 .
...after all.. you have Thingamajig 6.0 deployed everywhere to support Gizmo # 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same reason that FORTRAN is still used worldwide.
You pick a theory, and then you run with it.
Changing theories willy-nilly along the way is, far more often than not, stupid.
So after Gizmo #1 requires Thingamajig 6.0, Gizmo #2 is best to also require Thingamajig 6.0.
...after all.. you have Thingamajig 6.0 deployed everywhere to support Gizmo #1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813818</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263815460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep<br>More to the point, IE doesn't run on MacOSX; BSD.any.flavor; *nix.any.flavor<br>IE runs exclusively on M$ Windoz.all.flavors operating systems</p><p>IE6 just provides the easiest port of entry for bad guys into anyone's box, than any other version of IE.</p><p>For M$ to claim that IE8 is the most secure browser out there is like saying cigarettes cure lung cancer.</p><p>Simply put, M$ produces the most insecure products for any box that ventures out from your home and into the tubes of cyberspace. I'm not knocking their products, they are great for computer gaming and locked down isolated corporate networks. But for safe &amp; secure internet banking and general internet exposure, M$ just plain sucks!</p><p>M$ has mastered the OS that any bonehead can use. It's the trade off here, simplicity for security.</p><p>Another example of the problem is my college student daughter has her notebook badly infected with trojans &amp; malware. I tried to convince her to let me set her system up to dual boot Ubuntu &amp; XP. The XP for her college work &amp; Ubuntu for internet use. Unfortunately her boyfriend is a devoted M$ fanboi and promotes the M$ FUD that you have to compile all your drivers for Linux and it's not worth the time. I couldn't even get them to run a live CD to check it out for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YepMore to the point , IE does n't run on MacOSX ; BSD.any.flavor ; * nix.any.flavorIE runs exclusively on M $ Windoz.all.flavors operating systemsIE6 just provides the easiest port of entry for bad guys into anyone 's box , than any other version of IE.For M $ to claim that IE8 is the most secure browser out there is like saying cigarettes cure lung cancer.Simply put , M $ produces the most insecure products for any box that ventures out from your home and into the tubes of cyberspace .
I 'm not knocking their products , they are great for computer gaming and locked down isolated corporate networks .
But for safe &amp; secure internet banking and general internet exposure , M $ just plain sucks ! M $ has mastered the OS that any bonehead can use .
It 's the trade off here , simplicity for security.Another example of the problem is my college student daughter has her notebook badly infected with trojans &amp; malware .
I tried to convince her to let me set her system up to dual boot Ubuntu &amp; XP .
The XP for her college work &amp; Ubuntu for internet use .
Unfortunately her boyfriend is a devoted M $ fanboi and promotes the M $ FUD that you have to compile all your drivers for Linux and it 's not worth the time .
I could n't even get them to run a live CD to check it out for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YepMore to the point, IE doesn't run on MacOSX; BSD.any.flavor; *nix.any.flavorIE runs exclusively on M$ Windoz.all.flavors operating systemsIE6 just provides the easiest port of entry for bad guys into anyone's box, than any other version of IE.For M$ to claim that IE8 is the most secure browser out there is like saying cigarettes cure lung cancer.Simply put, M$ produces the most insecure products for any box that ventures out from your home and into the tubes of cyberspace.
I'm not knocking their products, they are great for computer gaming and locked down isolated corporate networks.
But for safe &amp; secure internet banking and general internet exposure, M$ just plain sucks!M$ has mastered the OS that any bonehead can use.
It's the trade off here, simplicity for security.Another example of the problem is my college student daughter has her notebook badly infected with trojans &amp; malware.
I tried to convince her to let me set her system up to dual boot Ubuntu &amp; XP.
The XP for her college work &amp; Ubuntu for internet use.
Unfortunately her boyfriend is a devoted M$ fanboi and promotes the M$ FUD that you have to compile all your drivers for Linux and it's not worth the time.
I couldn't even get them to run a live CD to check it out for themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816048</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the IE 'mentality'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263834720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why can't I have an option to 'right click, show flash' on all my flash animations?</p></div><p>It looks like you are searching for this:<br>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't I have an option to 'right click , show flash ' on all my flash animations ? It looks like you are searching for this : https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't I have an option to 'right click, show flash' on all my flash animations?It looks like you are searching for this:https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814978</id>
	<title>Re:But which browser to use?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263823440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use Firefox with NoScript, and only turn scripting on for sites that you trust to be secure (should be a pretty short list) or that you need to access and do business with. Be similarly protective with cookies. If you're aware of what's trying to run on your computer, then it's easier to notice XSS attempts when you see a script attempting to run from a different server than the site you're accessing.</p><p> The first time I ran across <a href="http://usa.visa.com/merchants/payment\_technologies/tech\_vendors\_vbv\_how.html" title="visa.com" rel="nofollow">Verified by VISA</a> [visa.com], I noticed it had behaviour very similar to a classic XSS attack. It ran a script from a different site which, since my bank had outsourced the back-end authentication, wasn't recognizable as my bank. Attempting to do the same from IE or Safari didn't indicate a problem. I think that the security analyst and the technical architect who signed off on that disaster should be unemployable because the approach enforces bad browsing habits on customers. However I expect that they are actually probably more successful with that big a project on their resume.</p><p>I refuse to do business with vendors that use Verified by VISA because the extra hoop is for their benefit, not mine. If they use it, they get a slightly better rate from VISA because user fraud is lower, but there really is no benefit to me as a user. There is no improvement in my expectation that their systems are more secure with my banking info, particularly if that's the best design/implementation they can come up with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use Firefox with NoScript , and only turn scripting on for sites that you trust to be secure ( should be a pretty short list ) or that you need to access and do business with .
Be similarly protective with cookies .
If you 're aware of what 's trying to run on your computer , then it 's easier to notice XSS attempts when you see a script attempting to run from a different server than the site you 're accessing .
The first time I ran across Verified by VISA [ visa.com ] , I noticed it had behaviour very similar to a classic XSS attack .
It ran a script from a different site which , since my bank had outsourced the back-end authentication , was n't recognizable as my bank .
Attempting to do the same from IE or Safari did n't indicate a problem .
I think that the security analyst and the technical architect who signed off on that disaster should be unemployable because the approach enforces bad browsing habits on customers .
However I expect that they are actually probably more successful with that big a project on their resume.I refuse to do business with vendors that use Verified by VISA because the extra hoop is for their benefit , not mine .
If they use it , they get a slightly better rate from VISA because user fraud is lower , but there really is no benefit to me as a user .
There is no improvement in my expectation that their systems are more secure with my banking info , particularly if that 's the best design/implementation they can come up with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use Firefox with NoScript, and only turn scripting on for sites that you trust to be secure (should be a pretty short list) or that you need to access and do business with.
Be similarly protective with cookies.
If you're aware of what's trying to run on your computer, then it's easier to notice XSS attempts when you see a script attempting to run from a different server than the site you're accessing.
The first time I ran across Verified by VISA [visa.com], I noticed it had behaviour very similar to a classic XSS attack.
It ran a script from a different site which, since my bank had outsourced the back-end authentication, wasn't recognizable as my bank.
Attempting to do the same from IE or Safari didn't indicate a problem.
I think that the security analyst and the technical architect who signed off on that disaster should be unemployable because the approach enforces bad browsing habits on customers.
However I expect that they are actually probably more successful with that big a project on their resume.I refuse to do business with vendors that use Verified by VISA because the extra hoop is for their benefit, not mine.
If they use it, they get a slightly better rate from VISA because user fraud is lower, but there really is no benefit to me as a user.
There is no improvement in my expectation that their systems are more secure with my banking info, particularly if that's the best design/implementation they can come up with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813280</id>
	<title>Wait a second....</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1263812760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>France and Germany <em>agree</em> on something?</p><p>The IE threat must be greater than previously imagined. Or...something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>France and Germany agree on something ? The IE threat must be greater than previously imagined .
Or...something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>France and Germany agree on something?The IE threat must be greater than previously imagined.
Or...something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814104</id>
	<title>The Part I don't Get.</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1263817080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While Microsoft won the browser war they failed their objectives.</p><p>The point of winning the browser war was so Microsoft could change the direction of web standards, eg pushing Active X except for Java Applets.  VB script vs Javascript etc.  This failed miserably for Microsoft now they are putting time and effort into IE a Free OS Addon to the product and they are not getting anything really out of it.   Except for this big push to make IE seem like this great browser they should just well use Firefox it is just as good if not better, we will keep IE going and as secure as possible for a while but will phase it out in about 10 years.</p><p>Staying #1 in the browser market where every version you are pushed to follow everyone elses standards is just a wast of your time and money, espectially when you have a slew of other people making good alternatives. Firefox, Chrome, Safari, etc... That really want to follow the standards.  Let IE fall too 20\% market share, this is OK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While Microsoft won the browser war they failed their objectives.The point of winning the browser war was so Microsoft could change the direction of web standards , eg pushing Active X except for Java Applets .
VB script vs Javascript etc .
This failed miserably for Microsoft now they are putting time and effort into IE a Free OS Addon to the product and they are not getting anything really out of it .
Except for this big push to make IE seem like this great browser they should just well use Firefox it is just as good if not better , we will keep IE going and as secure as possible for a while but will phase it out in about 10 years.Staying # 1 in the browser market where every version you are pushed to follow everyone elses standards is just a wast of your time and money , espectially when you have a slew of other people making good alternatives .
Firefox , Chrome , Safari , etc... That really want to follow the standards .
Let IE fall too 20 \ % market share , this is OK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Microsoft won the browser war they failed their objectives.The point of winning the browser war was so Microsoft could change the direction of web standards, eg pushing Active X except for Java Applets.
VB script vs Javascript etc.
This failed miserably for Microsoft now they are putting time and effort into IE a Free OS Addon to the product and they are not getting anything really out of it.
Except for this big push to make IE seem like this great browser they should just well use Firefox it is just as good if not better, we will keep IE going and as secure as possible for a while but will phase it out in about 10 years.Staying #1 in the browser market where every version you are pushed to follow everyone elses standards is just a wast of your time and money, espectially when you have a slew of other people making good alternatives.
Firefox, Chrome, Safari, etc... That really want to follow the standards.
Let IE fall too 20\% market share, this is OK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817326</id>
	<title>Different approach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263896340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Different approach to this whole mess... Google claims it got attacked by chinese, then they claim it's the fault of IE6 (wich is stupid, you can't attack a server with a browser, only users, unless their admins browse on production server machines using ie6 wich would be a good wtf). Then they blame MS, few european governments already well-fed with anti-ms crap join them saying MS is bad... and poof, google gets more browser share. Excellent</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Different approach to this whole mess... Google claims it got attacked by chinese , then they claim it 's the fault of IE6 ( wich is stupid , you ca n't attack a server with a browser , only users , unless their admins browse on production server machines using ie6 wich would be a good wtf ) .
Then they blame MS , few european governments already well-fed with anti-ms crap join them saying MS is bad... and poof , google gets more browser share .
Excellent</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Different approach to this whole mess... Google claims it got attacked by chinese, then they claim it's the fault of IE6 (wich is stupid, you can't attack a server with a browser, only users, unless their admins browse on production server machines using ie6 wich would be a good wtf).
Then they blame MS, few european governments already well-fed with anti-ms crap join them saying MS is bad... and poof, google gets more browser share.
Excellent</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814462</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1263819540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"France and Germany are mandating switching"</p><p>---&gt; no.</p><p>ICT agencies just communicate that IE is insecure and should not be used unless the critical security flaw is fixed. Basically the same Microsoft said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" France and Germany are mandating switching " --- &gt; no.ICT agencies just communicate that IE is insecure and should not be used unless the critical security flaw is fixed .
Basically the same Microsoft said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"France and Germany are mandating switching"---&gt; no.ICT agencies just communicate that IE is insecure and should not be used unless the critical security flaw is fixed.
Basically the same Microsoft said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813536</id>
	<title>And you all laughed</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263813960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I said this was all an elaborate ruse to Market Chrome.</p><p>Clearly I'm the only one here parano^H^H^H^H^H^HSensible enough to see whats plainly in front of us.</p><p>Take Microsoft vs Google. Google's brand name is made up of 50\% vowels, 50\% consonants, whereas Microsoft is 33-67. This is a clever method designed to make you think that Google is fairer and wishes to have an equal representation of all letters. However, this is just plain deceiptful, because "Chrome" is only 33\% vowels wheras "IE" (we'll abbreviate it) is 100\% vowels, thus making up for the lack of vowels in "Microsoft". There are also even spreads across such MS products as "Office" and "Live". Apple has felt the need to keep up with the proper representation of vowels by throwing in a single lowercase i in front of every one of their new products. Good on them.</p><p>So I know what you're thinking: What do vowels and consonants have to do with ACTA and Net Neutrality? Absolutely nothing! But they DO have a lot to do with the recent attacks made against Google. As you can recall, its been recently discovered that the attacks originated in China. Surprising to some people, English has not been fully adopted yet, and many Chinese citizens still speak Mandarin and that other language no one can remember. All traditional chinese languages use characters, not letters. (To those who program or are DBA's, a letter is what normal people call a char). Now, what is Mandarin missing that English has? You guessed it; VOWELS. It's clear and obvious that Google is behind all of it. What the end goal is, I'm not entirely sure, I'm still trying to connect the dots.</p><p>What's important about this article is that its happening in FRANCE. This is a bit of a PR stunt for France. You see, everyone hates Microsoft, and everyone hates France. This hurts the French industries of exporting Cheese, Wine, and arrogant behavior. So France is hoping that by declaring they hate Microsoft as well, everyone will look on them in a better light. WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS. If people start liking the French more, Baguettes will be everywhere. And I mean everywhere. Breakfast lunch and dinner. Baguettes at home, baguettes at work, baguette soup, baguette sandwhiches. Don't get me wrong I like a baguette every now and then but if we let them get a single foothold on the breadmarket they will take it over completely. There is nothing stronger then the relentless pursuits of a French Bunmaster.</p><p>So please, everyone, I beg of you. Keep using IE8, if you already do. Not because its secure, because it isn't. Not because of Google, no matter how evil they secretly are...</p><p>But because the standard loaf shape of bread is under attack, and if we don't come to defend it, no one will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I said this was all an elaborate ruse to Market Chrome.Clearly I 'm the only one here parano ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ HSensible enough to see whats plainly in front of us.Take Microsoft vs Google .
Google 's brand name is made up of 50 \ % vowels , 50 \ % consonants , whereas Microsoft is 33-67 .
This is a clever method designed to make you think that Google is fairer and wishes to have an equal representation of all letters .
However , this is just plain deceiptful , because " Chrome " is only 33 \ % vowels wheras " IE " ( we 'll abbreviate it ) is 100 \ % vowels , thus making up for the lack of vowels in " Microsoft " .
There are also even spreads across such MS products as " Office " and " Live " .
Apple has felt the need to keep up with the proper representation of vowels by throwing in a single lowercase i in front of every one of their new products .
Good on them.So I know what you 're thinking : What do vowels and consonants have to do with ACTA and Net Neutrality ?
Absolutely nothing !
But they DO have a lot to do with the recent attacks made against Google .
As you can recall , its been recently discovered that the attacks originated in China .
Surprising to some people , English has not been fully adopted yet , and many Chinese citizens still speak Mandarin and that other language no one can remember .
All traditional chinese languages use characters , not letters .
( To those who program or are DBA 's , a letter is what normal people call a char ) .
Now , what is Mandarin missing that English has ?
You guessed it ; VOWELS .
It 's clear and obvious that Google is behind all of it .
What the end goal is , I 'm not entirely sure , I 'm still trying to connect the dots.What 's important about this article is that its happening in FRANCE .
This is a bit of a PR stunt for France .
You see , everyone hates Microsoft , and everyone hates France .
This hurts the French industries of exporting Cheese , Wine , and arrogant behavior .
So France is hoping that by declaring they hate Microsoft as well , everyone will look on them in a better light .
WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS .
If people start liking the French more , Baguettes will be everywhere .
And I mean everywhere .
Breakfast lunch and dinner .
Baguettes at home , baguettes at work , baguette soup , baguette sandwhiches .
Do n't get me wrong I like a baguette every now and then but if we let them get a single foothold on the breadmarket they will take it over completely .
There is nothing stronger then the relentless pursuits of a French Bunmaster.So please , everyone , I beg of you .
Keep using IE8 , if you already do .
Not because its secure , because it is n't .
Not because of Google , no matter how evil they secretly are...But because the standard loaf shape of bread is under attack , and if we do n't come to defend it , no one will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I said this was all an elaborate ruse to Market Chrome.Clearly I'm the only one here parano^H^H^H^H^H^HSensible enough to see whats plainly in front of us.Take Microsoft vs Google.
Google's brand name is made up of 50\% vowels, 50\% consonants, whereas Microsoft is 33-67.
This is a clever method designed to make you think that Google is fairer and wishes to have an equal representation of all letters.
However, this is just plain deceiptful, because "Chrome" is only 33\% vowels wheras "IE" (we'll abbreviate it) is 100\% vowels, thus making up for the lack of vowels in "Microsoft".
There are also even spreads across such MS products as "Office" and "Live".
Apple has felt the need to keep up with the proper representation of vowels by throwing in a single lowercase i in front of every one of their new products.
Good on them.So I know what you're thinking: What do vowels and consonants have to do with ACTA and Net Neutrality?
Absolutely nothing!
But they DO have a lot to do with the recent attacks made against Google.
As you can recall, its been recently discovered that the attacks originated in China.
Surprising to some people, English has not been fully adopted yet, and many Chinese citizens still speak Mandarin and that other language no one can remember.
All traditional chinese languages use characters, not letters.
(To those who program or are DBA's, a letter is what normal people call a char).
Now, what is Mandarin missing that English has?
You guessed it; VOWELS.
It's clear and obvious that Google is behind all of it.
What the end goal is, I'm not entirely sure, I'm still trying to connect the dots.What's important about this article is that its happening in FRANCE.
This is a bit of a PR stunt for France.
You see, everyone hates Microsoft, and everyone hates France.
This hurts the French industries of exporting Cheese, Wine, and arrogant behavior.
So France is hoping that by declaring they hate Microsoft as well, everyone will look on them in a better light.
WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS.
If people start liking the French more, Baguettes will be everywhere.
And I mean everywhere.
Breakfast lunch and dinner.
Baguettes at home, baguettes at work, baguette soup, baguette sandwhiches.
Don't get me wrong I like a baguette every now and then but if we let them get a single foothold on the breadmarket they will take it over completely.
There is nothing stronger then the relentless pursuits of a French Bunmaster.So please, everyone, I beg of you.
Keep using IE8, if you already do.
Not because its secure, because it isn't.
Not because of Google, no matter how evil they secretly are...But because the standard loaf shape of bread is under attack, and if we don't come to defend it, no one will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815442</id>
	<title>How?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263828180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does Microsoft gain by forcing everyone to have IE installed on Windows by default (now excluding the EU of course).</p><p>They don't make any money from selling it... Someone said that the formats they were trying to push were the end game, but it is apparent that they have no chance in accomplishing that.</p><p>So why does Microsoft continue? Is it too late to reduce the interoperability between Internet Explorer and Windows itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does Microsoft gain by forcing everyone to have IE installed on Windows by default ( now excluding the EU of course ) .They do n't make any money from selling it... Someone said that the formats they were trying to push were the end game , but it is apparent that they have no chance in accomplishing that.So why does Microsoft continue ?
Is it too late to reduce the interoperability between Internet Explorer and Windows itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does Microsoft gain by forcing everyone to have IE installed on Windows by default (now excluding the EU of course).They don't make any money from selling it... Someone said that the formats they were trying to push were the end game, but it is apparent that they have no chance in accomplishing that.So why does Microsoft continue?
Is it too late to reduce the interoperability between Internet Explorer and Windows itself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814692</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the IE 'mentality'</title>
	<author>pyrbrand</author>
	<datestamp>1263821220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, any add on can be enabled for only a specific set of pages.  For instance, to restrict the use of Flash in IE8, to go Tools-&gt;Manage Add-Ons then under the Adobe published by section, double click the "Shockwave Flash Object" (I don't know why Adobe can't just call it Flash), then under the text field titled "You have approved this add-on to run on the following websites:", click the button "Remove all sites".  Now you'll get a gold bar on every site that uses flash in which you can allow the site to run flash or not.  Not quite as nice as Flashblock, but still pretty good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , any add on can be enabled for only a specific set of pages .
For instance , to restrict the use of Flash in IE8 , to go Tools- &gt; Manage Add-Ons then under the Adobe published by section , double click the " Shockwave Flash Object " ( I do n't know why Adobe ca n't just call it Flash ) , then under the text field titled " You have approved this add-on to run on the following websites : " , click the button " Remove all sites " .
Now you 'll get a gold bar on every site that uses flash in which you can allow the site to run flash or not .
Not quite as nice as Flashblock , but still pretty good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, any add on can be enabled for only a specific set of pages.
For instance, to restrict the use of Flash in IE8, to go Tools-&gt;Manage Add-Ons then under the Adobe published by section, double click the "Shockwave Flash Object" (I don't know why Adobe can't just call it Flash), then under the text field titled "You have approved this add-on to run on the following websites:", click the button "Remove all sites".
Now you'll get a gold bar on every site that uses flash in which you can allow the site to run flash or not.
Not quite as nice as Flashblock, but still pretty good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813512</id>
	<title>Ekhem, Germany and France are in Europe...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263813840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you know, the place that <i>already</i> doesn't have browser monoculture. Therefore, your premise doesn't hold true - they don't want to shatter IE monoculture, create variation in the market. They just don't want people to use IE.</p><p>And especially in Europe, that's very much four engines, not three, with one or two places having Opera as number one browser, few other as number one alternative browser, and in many it has quite respectable usage share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you know , the place that already does n't have browser monoculture .
Therefore , your premise does n't hold true - they do n't want to shatter IE monoculture , create variation in the market .
They just do n't want people to use IE.And especially in Europe , that 's very much four engines , not three , with one or two places having Opera as number one browser , few other as number one alternative browser , and in many it has quite respectable usage share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you know, the place that already doesn't have browser monoculture.
Therefore, your premise doesn't hold true - they don't want to shatter IE monoculture, create variation in the market.
They just don't want people to use IE.And especially in Europe, that's very much four engines, not three, with one or two places having Opera as number one browser, few other as number one alternative browser, and in many it has quite respectable usage share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813694</id>
	<title>Re:Don't switch?</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1263814680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds a little like this site I ran across that at first appeared to be a very extreme "right-wing conservative" website, but the more I read, the more I thought that it must be a very [b|s]ad sarcastic humor site or a poor attempt at astro-turf from the "other side."  They go as far to say that anyone using Firefox or any open source software is a communist and/or a fascist and "God" hates them for it.  Microsoft is the only appropriate software distributor, unless you want "God" to hate you too.  They have a list of people "God" dislikes and they strike out the name of the person when they are dead and put "(God won)" after it.</p><p>I know it's bad to spread the URL around to give them more attention, but it's one of those things that are "so bad you have to watch"</p><p>shelleytherepublican.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds a little like this site I ran across that at first appeared to be a very extreme " right-wing conservative " website , but the more I read , the more I thought that it must be a very [ b | s ] ad sarcastic humor site or a poor attempt at astro-turf from the " other side .
" They go as far to say that anyone using Firefox or any open source software is a communist and/or a fascist and " God " hates them for it .
Microsoft is the only appropriate software distributor , unless you want " God " to hate you too .
They have a list of people " God " dislikes and they strike out the name of the person when they are dead and put " ( God won ) " after it.I know it 's bad to spread the URL around to give them more attention , but it 's one of those things that are " so bad you have to watch " shelleytherepublican.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds a little like this site I ran across that at first appeared to be a very extreme "right-wing conservative" website, but the more I read, the more I thought that it must be a very [b|s]ad sarcastic humor site or a poor attempt at astro-turf from the "other side.
"  They go as far to say that anyone using Firefox or any open source software is a communist and/or a fascist and "God" hates them for it.
Microsoft is the only appropriate software distributor, unless you want "God" to hate you too.
They have a list of people "God" dislikes and they strike out the name of the person when they are dead and put "(God won)" after it.I know it's bad to spread the URL around to give them more attention, but it's one of those things that are "so bad you have to watch"shelleytherepublican.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815240</id>
	<title>More Greasy - Less Filing</title>
	<author>handfullofsausage</author>
	<datestamp>1263825720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft still insists IE8 is the 'most secure browser on the market' and you will barley notice any difference once they do release a patch. You see you can hardly tell it's IE all covered in kay-why... Remember, when it comes to security, if the door is locked try opening a Window!!!

Yeah and I believe in the Easter Bunny!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft still insists IE8 is the 'most secure browser on the market ' and you will barley notice any difference once they do release a patch .
You see you can hardly tell it 's IE all covered in kay-why... Remember , when it comes to security , if the door is locked try opening a Window ! ! !
Yeah and I believe in the Easter Bunny !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft still insists IE8 is the 'most secure browser on the market' and you will barley notice any difference once they do release a patch.
You see you can hardly tell it's IE all covered in kay-why... Remember, when it comes to security, if the door is locked try opening a Window!!!
Yeah and I believe in the Easter Bunny!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813460</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263813540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This is completely absurd FUD. IE *was used*, it is insecure, and there is no fix (yet). These conclusions come right from this article and others.</i> <br> <br>

Everywhere I read this I see IE 6.  That would seem to contradict everything you just said.  Wouldn't the fix be a newer version of IE and the problem be using outdated software?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is completely absurd FUD .
IE * was used * , it is insecure , and there is no fix ( yet ) .
These conclusions come right from this article and others .
Everywhere I read this I see IE 6 .
That would seem to contradict everything you just said .
Would n't the fix be a newer version of IE and the problem be using outdated software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is completely absurd FUD.
IE *was used*, it is insecure, and there is no fix (yet).
These conclusions come right from this article and others.
Everywhere I read this I see IE 6.
That would seem to contradict everything you just said.
Wouldn't the fix be a newer version of IE and the problem be using outdated software?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814646</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1263820800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just the same logical fallacy that Microsoft keep repeating. Regardless of hypothetical attacks on alternative browsers and regardless of what their long-term browser interests are, there is a major vulnerability in IE explorer which could possibly affect newer versions. While this vulnerability exists, it is downright negligent to recommend people not to switch and imply greater risk if they do. I really hope some major institution is attacked running IE7 before a patch is released, just to expose these liars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just the same logical fallacy that Microsoft keep repeating .
Regardless of hypothetical attacks on alternative browsers and regardless of what their long-term browser interests are , there is a major vulnerability in IE explorer which could possibly affect newer versions .
While this vulnerability exists , it is downright negligent to recommend people not to switch and imply greater risk if they do .
I really hope some major institution is attacked running IE7 before a patch is released , just to expose these liars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just the same logical fallacy that Microsoft keep repeating.
Regardless of hypothetical attacks on alternative browsers and regardless of what their long-term browser interests are, there is a major vulnerability in IE explorer which could possibly affect newer versions.
While this vulnerability exists, it is downright negligent to recommend people not to switch and imply greater risk if they do.
I really hope some major institution is attacked running IE7 before a patch is released, just to expose these liars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814206</id>
	<title>Re:And you all laughed</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1263817620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They'll have to pry my Freedom Bread from my cold, dead body!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll have to pry my Freedom Bread from my cold , dead body !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll have to pry my Freedom Bread from my cold, dead body!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30819384</id>
	<title>Re:Actually not that bad of a suggestion.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1263917580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Monoculture of OpenSSH is also a vulnerability.  OpenSSH is different from a browser in a few ways.<br>1. It has a much smaller user base than IE<br>2. It has a much smaller code base than any of the major browsers.<br>The smaller the code base the easier to secure.<br>That being said OpenSSH is still a great example of a well written and very secure program. However if there ever was a serious security issue in OpenSSH the monoculture nature of it would make that issue far worse than if there was a great variety of SSH clients.<br>But IE gets hacked left and right because of a number of reasons.<br>1. It has vulnerabilities.<br>2. Because it is so common it is a prize target so people hunt out the vulnerabilities.</p><p>My point is that even if Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari are no secure than IE increasing the variety of browsers will decrease the value of exploits and the impact of the exploit.<br>Also have a large and thriving choice of browsers means that when an exploit is found in any one of them it is easy to stop using the vulnerable one until it is patched and use one of the good alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Monoculture of OpenSSH is also a vulnerability .
OpenSSH is different from a browser in a few ways.1 .
It has a much smaller user base than IE2 .
It has a much smaller code base than any of the major browsers.The smaller the code base the easier to secure.That being said OpenSSH is still a great example of a well written and very secure program .
However if there ever was a serious security issue in OpenSSH the monoculture nature of it would make that issue far worse than if there was a great variety of SSH clients.But IE gets hacked left and right because of a number of reasons.1 .
It has vulnerabilities.2 .
Because it is so common it is a prize target so people hunt out the vulnerabilities.My point is that even if Firefox , Chrome , Opera , and Safari are no secure than IE increasing the variety of browsers will decrease the value of exploits and the impact of the exploit.Also have a large and thriving choice of browsers means that when an exploit is found in any one of them it is easy to stop using the vulnerable one until it is patched and use one of the good alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Monoculture of OpenSSH is also a vulnerability.
OpenSSH is different from a browser in a few ways.1.
It has a much smaller user base than IE2.
It has a much smaller code base than any of the major browsers.The smaller the code base the easier to secure.That being said OpenSSH is still a great example of a well written and very secure program.
However if there ever was a serious security issue in OpenSSH the monoculture nature of it would make that issue far worse than if there was a great variety of SSH clients.But IE gets hacked left and right because of a number of reasons.1.
It has vulnerabilities.2.
Because it is so common it is a prize target so people hunt out the vulnerabilities.My point is that even if Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari are no secure than IE increasing the variety of browsers will decrease the value of exploits and the impact of the exploit.Also have a large and thriving choice of browsers means that when an exploit is found in any one of them it is easy to stop using the vulnerable one until it is patched and use one of the good alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498</id>
	<title>I blame the IE 'mentality'</title>
	<author>brxndxn</author>
	<datestamp>1263813780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember Steve Ballmer screaming 'Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!' and that has been the IE 'menality' ever since. The mentality is "Give the developers (especially big huge companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec, Google) complete control over the users' computers just by clicking 'ok' in Internet Explorer one time." That has got to be seen as a security hole. Every goddamn piece of software now wants to run as a service, check for updates, annoy the user, and prioritize itself. For example, once you install Adobe Flash, it is there.. on every web page.. despite whether the user might want to choose not to load the annoying flash for that particular web page. I am not complaining just about flash - just about the lack of options to make installed software optional. Why can't I have an option to 'right click, show flash' on all my flash animations? and for that matter.. all other software that wants to open by default without giving me an option to save?</p><p>Here's how I would make IE more secure in a general sense:</p><p>1. Program the 'stop' button as the highest priority. IE is useless if it decides it has to load an entire complicated web page (or malware site) before I can click 'stop' and cancel all of it.</p><p>2. Put options in IE to disallow resizing of IE windows by script, removing of toolbar buttons, preventing the user from resizing windows, and using 100\% of system resources to process a web page.</p><p>3. Remove the ability for a 'Windows popup button' to prevent the user from stopping a script. How asinine is it that a web page can merely repeatedly pop up system messages forcing the user to click ok before allowing the user to click stop? IE screws this up royally with Java helping.</p><p>4. Put a 'cookie tracker' right inside Internet Explorer.. Allow the user to control whether a site can modify a cookie. Notify the user (at the bottom status bar - not in his fucking face) that 'a cookie was created or modified' when visiting a web page. User might get suspicious when his favorite porn site tries to modify the 'gmail' cookie.</p><p>5. Never allow web pages to stop me from right-clicking. Fuck you. It's my computer.</p><p>I'm sure there's a whole lot of other things I could say that Microsoft will continue to ignore..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember Steve Ballmer screaming 'Developers !
Developers ! Developers !
Developers ! ' and that has been the IE 'menality ' ever since .
The mentality is " Give the developers ( especially big huge companies like Microsoft , Adobe , Symantec , Google ) complete control over the users ' computers just by clicking 'ok ' in Internet Explorer one time .
" That has got to be seen as a security hole .
Every goddamn piece of software now wants to run as a service , check for updates , annoy the user , and prioritize itself .
For example , once you install Adobe Flash , it is there.. on every web page.. despite whether the user might want to choose not to load the annoying flash for that particular web page .
I am not complaining just about flash - just about the lack of options to make installed software optional .
Why ca n't I have an option to 'right click , show flash ' on all my flash animations ?
and for that matter.. all other software that wants to open by default without giving me an option to save ? Here 's how I would make IE more secure in a general sense : 1 .
Program the 'stop ' button as the highest priority .
IE is useless if it decides it has to load an entire complicated web page ( or malware site ) before I can click 'stop ' and cancel all of it.2 .
Put options in IE to disallow resizing of IE windows by script , removing of toolbar buttons , preventing the user from resizing windows , and using 100 \ % of system resources to process a web page.3 .
Remove the ability for a 'Windows popup button ' to prevent the user from stopping a script .
How asinine is it that a web page can merely repeatedly pop up system messages forcing the user to click ok before allowing the user to click stop ?
IE screws this up royally with Java helping.4 .
Put a 'cookie tracker ' right inside Internet Explorer.. Allow the user to control whether a site can modify a cookie .
Notify the user ( at the bottom status bar - not in his fucking face ) that 'a cookie was created or modified ' when visiting a web page .
User might get suspicious when his favorite porn site tries to modify the 'gmail ' cookie.5 .
Never allow web pages to stop me from right-clicking .
Fuck you .
It 's my computer.I 'm sure there 's a whole lot of other things I could say that Microsoft will continue to ignore. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember Steve Ballmer screaming 'Developers!
Developers! Developers!
Developers!' and that has been the IE 'menality' ever since.
The mentality is "Give the developers (especially big huge companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec, Google) complete control over the users' computers just by clicking 'ok' in Internet Explorer one time.
" That has got to be seen as a security hole.
Every goddamn piece of software now wants to run as a service, check for updates, annoy the user, and prioritize itself.
For example, once you install Adobe Flash, it is there.. on every web page.. despite whether the user might want to choose not to load the annoying flash for that particular web page.
I am not complaining just about flash - just about the lack of options to make installed software optional.
Why can't I have an option to 'right click, show flash' on all my flash animations?
and for that matter.. all other software that wants to open by default without giving me an option to save?Here's how I would make IE more secure in a general sense:1.
Program the 'stop' button as the highest priority.
IE is useless if it decides it has to load an entire complicated web page (or malware site) before I can click 'stop' and cancel all of it.2.
Put options in IE to disallow resizing of IE windows by script, removing of toolbar buttons, preventing the user from resizing windows, and using 100\% of system resources to process a web page.3.
Remove the ability for a 'Windows popup button' to prevent the user from stopping a script.
How asinine is it that a web page can merely repeatedly pop up system messages forcing the user to click ok before allowing the user to click stop?
IE screws this up royally with Java helping.4.
Put a 'cookie tracker' right inside Internet Explorer.. Allow the user to control whether a site can modify a cookie.
Notify the user (at the bottom status bar - not in his fucking face) that 'a cookie was created or modified' when visiting a web page.
User might get suspicious when his favorite porn site tries to modify the 'gmail' cookie.5.
Never allow web pages to stop me from right-clicking.
Fuck you.
It's my computer.I'm sure there's a whole lot of other things I could say that Microsoft will continue to ignore..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813114</id>
	<title>Everybody knows OTHERS are stupid...</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1263811980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>duh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>duh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>duh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30819566</id>
	<title>Re:False sense of security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OS issues are the same problem, no one would ever think of writing a hack/virus for a commodore today.</p></div><p>And how much market share does the Commodore Amiga have?</p><p>Once you answer that, follow <a href="http://ave.teyko.com/" title="teyko.com" rel="nofollow">this link</a> [teyko.com] to see how many viruses there are for it.  So much for the "smaller target" fallacy.  Note the dates on those viruses.  It's up-to-date.  Some were updated just today! (19 january 2010 - the "angel" virus is one.)</p><p>Now, that said, let's look at the caveat.  No operating system is secure in the hands of someone determined to get a virus.  If you have an idiot using the computer, it's far more likely to get infected.  There's no such thing as a perfectly secure operating system.</p><p>But 750,000 working viruses? Seriously?  C'mon Microsoft. Do better!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OS issues are the same problem , no one would ever think of writing a hack/virus for a commodore today.And how much market share does the Commodore Amiga have ? Once you answer that , follow this link [ teyko.com ] to see how many viruses there are for it .
So much for the " smaller target " fallacy .
Note the dates on those viruses .
It 's up-to-date .
Some were updated just today !
( 19 january 2010 - the " angel " virus is one .
) Now , that said , let 's look at the caveat .
No operating system is secure in the hands of someone determined to get a virus .
If you have an idiot using the computer , it 's far more likely to get infected .
There 's no such thing as a perfectly secure operating system.But 750,000 working viruses ?
Seriously ? C'mon Microsoft .
Do better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OS issues are the same problem, no one would ever think of writing a hack/virus for a commodore today.And how much market share does the Commodore Amiga have?Once you answer that, follow this link [teyko.com] to see how many viruses there are for it.
So much for the "smaller target" fallacy.
Note the dates on those viruses.
It's up-to-date.
Some were updated just today!
(19 january 2010 - the "angel" virus is one.
)Now, that said, let's look at the caveat.
No operating system is secure in the hands of someone determined to get a virus.
If you have an idiot using the computer, it's far more likely to get infected.
There's no such thing as a perfectly secure operating system.But 750,000 working viruses?
Seriously?  C'mon Microsoft.
Do better!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817290</id>
	<title>Imagine Microsoft approval</title>
	<author>egnop</author>
	<datestamp>1263895800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you think the main target will become Firefox? and a lack of funding, a truckload of frustration and the end of another era?</p><p>ps. I don't use IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you think the main target will become Firefox ?
and a lack of funding , a truckload of frustration and the end of another era ? ps .
I do n't use IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you think the main target will become Firefox?
and a lack of funding, a truckload of frustration and the end of another era?ps.
I don't use IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817466</id>
	<title>Re:Don't switch?</title>
	<author>VJ42</author>
	<datestamp>1263898200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen that site before and I believe it's a parody site. The fact that you couldn't tell if it's real suggest both that it's good parody, and scares me (I'm a Brit, are there actually people like that out there?). Check out what she has to say about Linux...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen that site before and I believe it 's a parody site .
The fact that you could n't tell if it 's real suggest both that it 's good parody , and scares me ( I 'm a Brit , are there actually people like that out there ? ) .
Check out what she has to say about Linux.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen that site before and I believe it's a parody site.
The fact that you couldn't tell if it's real suggest both that it's good parody, and scares me (I'm a Brit, are there actually people like that out there?).
Check out what she has to say about Linux...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814580</id>
	<title>Locks and burglars</title>
	<author>Exitar</author>
	<datestamp>1263820440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course if a burglar breaks in my apartment thank to a defect of my lock and steal my fornitures I blame the burglar for the theft.<br>But I change my lock afterward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course if a burglar breaks in my apartment thank to a defect of my lock and steal my fornitures I blame the burglar for the theft.But I change my lock afterward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course if a burglar breaks in my apartment thank to a defect of my lock and steal my fornitures I blame the burglar for the theft.But I change my lock afterward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816810</id>
	<title>What's up with PC World?</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1263932880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer a real sense of security. But until that comes along, it just makes sense not to use any version of Internet Explorer.<br><br>Is PC World owned by Norton or Symantec?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer a real sense of security .
But until that comes along , it just makes sense not to use any version of Internet Explorer.Is PC World owned by Norton or Symantec ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer a real sense of security.
But until that comes along, it just makes sense not to use any version of Internet Explorer.Is PC World owned by Norton or Symantec?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813554</id>
	<title>Re:Actually not that bad of a suggestion.</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1263814020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The two faces to this argument are that IE on windows gets hacked left right and centre because it's popular, and that (picking a browser at random) KHTML is ONLY secure because it's very obscure.</p><p>OpenSSH has a massive user base, and is practically a monoculture in remote access on the *nix platform. An exploit would be extremely valuable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Oh right, it turns out security is a physical property of a system, and not just some statistic.<br>Bottom line is that IE really has sucked all its life; and not just statistically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The two faces to this argument are that IE on windows gets hacked left right and centre because it 's popular , and that ( picking a browser at random ) KHTML is ONLY secure because it 's very obscure.OpenSSH has a massive user base , and is practically a monoculture in remote access on the * nix platform .
An exploit would be extremely valuable ... Oh right , it turns out security is a physical property of a system , and not just some statistic.Bottom line is that IE really has sucked all its life ; and not just statistically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two faces to this argument are that IE on windows gets hacked left right and centre because it's popular, and that (picking a browser at random) KHTML is ONLY secure because it's very obscure.OpenSSH has a massive user base, and is practically a monoculture in remote access on the *nix platform.
An exploit would be extremely valuable ... Oh right, it turns out security is a physical property of a system, and not just some statistic.Bottom line is that IE really has sucked all its life; and not just statistically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816210</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed Message</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263837420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be true if the masses of computer users were even remotely concerned with security. I mean, come on, how many of you work in offices where you can find people's passwords on post-its on the monitor or under the keyboard....show of hands.</p><p>IE could be the most secure product ever, and it would still be under constant attack.  The problem is simply...most people use it 'cause it comes with the PC they bought.</p><p>The number one share of the browser market, just like the OS market, will always be the primary target of malicious coders because even a small percentage of success translates into a higher number of infections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be true if the masses of computer users were even remotely concerned with security .
I mean , come on , how many of you work in offices where you can find people 's passwords on post-its on the monitor or under the keyboard....show of hands.IE could be the most secure product ever , and it would still be under constant attack .
The problem is simply...most people use it 'cause it comes with the PC they bought.The number one share of the browser market , just like the OS market , will always be the primary target of malicious coders because even a small percentage of success translates into a higher number of infections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be true if the masses of computer users were even remotely concerned with security.
I mean, come on, how many of you work in offices where you can find people's passwords on post-its on the monitor or under the keyboard....show of hands.IE could be the most secure product ever, and it would still be under constant attack.
The problem is simply...most people use it 'cause it comes with the PC they bought.The number one share of the browser market, just like the OS market, will always be the primary target of malicious coders because even a small percentage of success translates into a higher number of infections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813230</id>
	<title>PCWorld, kindly STFU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263812400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey PCWorld -- a vendor refusing to patch a product that has a major security hole in it that's very publicly known is criminally negligent, and yes, the correct answer is to stop using that product and punish the ever-living crap out of the executives and the company that isn't taking something like that seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey PCWorld -- a vendor refusing to patch a product that has a major security hole in it that 's very publicly known is criminally negligent , and yes , the correct answer is to stop using that product and punish the ever-living crap out of the executives and the company that is n't taking something like that seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey PCWorld -- a vendor refusing to patch a product that has a major security hole in it that's very publicly known is criminally negligent, and yes, the correct answer is to stop using that product and punish the ever-living crap out of the executives and the company that isn't taking something like that seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817122</id>
	<title>lawsuit?</title>
	<author>SuperDre</author>
	<datestamp>1263893640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think MS has a good reason to start suing france and germany, as it already has been proven that not only IE is the problem, but also the other browsers like FF/Chrome/safar and opera have the same flaw as it the whole problem also arrises with flash and some other components which are also used by any modern browser.

This is nothing more than really MS bashing...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think MS has a good reason to start suing france and germany , as it already has been proven that not only IE is the problem , but also the other browsers like FF/Chrome/safar and opera have the same flaw as it the whole problem also arrises with flash and some other components which are also used by any modern browser .
This is nothing more than really MS bashing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think MS has a good reason to start suing france and germany, as it already has been proven that not only IE is the problem, but also the other browsers like FF/Chrome/safar and opera have the same flaw as it the whole problem also arrises with flash and some other components which are also used by any modern browser.
This is nothing more than really MS bashing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813744</id>
	<title>Switch!!!</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1263814980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>... blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security.</i> </p><p>Because a false sense of security is better than no sense of security at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security .
Because a false sense of security is better than no sense of security at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... blaming IE for attacks is a dangerous approach that could cause a false sense of security.
Because a false sense of security is better than no sense of security at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813292</id>
	<title>Simple answers for simple people...</title>
	<author>jofny</author>
	<datestamp>1263812760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, it's both: IE should be avoided until there's a patch and yes, blaming one software package does give people who dont know any better or dont think about it a false sense of security when they switch. They're not mutually exclusive positions...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , it 's both : IE should be avoided until there 's a patch and yes , blaming one software package does give people who dont know any better or dont think about it a false sense of security when they switch .
They 're not mutually exclusive positions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, it's both: IE should be avoided until there's a patch and yes, blaming one software package does give people who dont know any better or dont think about it a false sense of security when they switch.
They're not mutually exclusive positions...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817994</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the IE 'mentality'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263906300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And also add a button so I can complain when the web-pages don't look right with all the content missing!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And also add a button so I can complain when the web-pages do n't look right with all the content missing ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And also add a button so I can complain when the web-pages don't look right with all the content missing!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814020</id>
	<title>Re:Don't switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263816600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While browser specific app's are not as common any more and should continue in to fall in numbers as IE becomes more standards based as it has over the last few years, what many people forget (or never knew because if they actually managed to work in IT department never made it past 1st line helpdesk support role) is these IE only apps are are in many cases nearly a decade old, sure they are dated but companies will not upgrade without very good reason (aka app no longer works) , because while the cost to upgrade/replace browser might be free, the cost to upgrade/replace the IE dependant app can run into the 10's of millions and that does not include possible ripple effect costs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While browser specific app 's are not as common any more and should continue in to fall in numbers as IE becomes more standards based as it has over the last few years , what many people forget ( or never knew because if they actually managed to work in IT department never made it past 1st line helpdesk support role ) is these IE only apps are are in many cases nearly a decade old , sure they are dated but companies will not upgrade without very good reason ( aka app no longer works ) , because while the cost to upgrade/replace browser might be free , the cost to upgrade/replace the IE dependant app can run into the 10 's of millions and that does not include possible ripple effect costs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While browser specific app's are not as common any more and should continue in to fall in numbers as IE becomes more standards based as it has over the last few years, what many people forget (or never knew because if they actually managed to work in IT department never made it past 1st line helpdesk support role) is these IE only apps are are in many cases nearly a decade old, sure they are dated but companies will not upgrade without very good reason (aka app no longer works) , because while the cost to upgrade/replace browser might be free, the cost to upgrade/replace the IE dependant app can run into the 10's of millions and that does not include possible ripple effect costs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816954</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the IE 'mentality'</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1263934740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>User might get suspicious when his favorite porn site tries to modify the 'gmail' cookie.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You don't need user for that. Browser should freak out when some site tries to inject or modify cookie which belongs to other site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>User might get suspicious when his favorite porn site tries to modify the 'gmail ' cookie .
You do n't need user for that .
Browser should freak out when some site tries to inject or modify cookie which belongs to other site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>User might get suspicious when his favorite porn site tries to modify the 'gmail' cookie.
You don't need user for that.
Browser should freak out when some site tries to inject or modify cookie which belongs to other site.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813646</id>
	<title>Re:Don't switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263814440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess having more than one browser installed is apparently something that would cause the universe collapse.  It's not something that really takes much work either, if there's a known bug, use something else until it's fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess having more than one browser installed is apparently something that would cause the universe collapse .
It 's not something that really takes much work either , if there 's a known bug , use something else until it 's fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess having more than one browser installed is apparently something that would cause the universe collapse.
It's not something that really takes much work either, if there's a known bug, use something else until it's fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815048</id>
	<title>Re:I blame the IE 'mentality'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263823980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re: #1 -</p><p>Having a more responsive stop button, to kill runaway JS code, etc, would be nice, but I'm sorry... relying on the stop button to prevent malware is like relying on the "pull out" method of contraception to prevent pregnancy and STDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : # 1 -Having a more responsive stop button , to kill runaway JS code , etc , would be nice , but I 'm sorry... relying on the stop button to prevent malware is like relying on the " pull out " method of contraception to prevent pregnancy and STDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: #1 -Having a more responsive stop button, to kill runaway JS code, etc, would be nice, but I'm sorry... relying on the stop button to prevent malware is like relying on the "pull out" method of contraception to prevent pregnancy and STDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813946</id>
	<title>mod do3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263816060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Corporate culture of abuse BSD style.' IN the invited back again.</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporate culture of abuse BSD style .
' IN the invited back again .
[ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporate culture of abuse BSD style.
' IN the invited back again.
[goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30818660</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1263913620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great post. Agree 100\%.  Couldn't believe the author of the article was trying to make the case to stay with an un-secure browser.
<br> <br>
Worse yet, the same exploit effects all versions of IE, 6 through IE 8.  But somehow the author said the exploit was lessoned using IE 8 on Windows 7.  Other articles begged to differ.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great post .
Agree 100 \ % .
Could n't believe the author of the article was trying to make the case to stay with an un-secure browser .
Worse yet , the same exploit effects all versions of IE , 6 through IE 8 .
But somehow the author said the exploit was lessoned using IE 8 on Windows 7 .
Other articles begged to differ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great post.
Agree 100\%.
Couldn't believe the author of the article was trying to make the case to stay with an un-secure browser.
Worse yet, the same exploit effects all versions of IE, 6 through IE 8.
But somehow the author said the exploit was lessoned using IE 8 on Windows 7.
Other articles begged to differ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813104</id>
	<title>Better Yet: Abandon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263811920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">MIcroslop</a> [microsoft.com] completely.</p><p>Yours In Novosibirsk,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MIcroslop [ microsoft.com ] completely.Yours In Novosibirsk,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MIcroslop [microsoft.com] completely.Yours In Novosibirsk,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30818020</id>
	<title>Only IE6?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263906780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has Google confirmed any of the other attack vectors, or are they only listing those they have a competing product?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Google confirmed any of the other attack vectors , or are they only listing those they have a competing product ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Google confirmed any of the other attack vectors, or are they only listing those they have a competing product?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813436</id>
	<title>But which browser to use?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263813480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As many I escaped IE long time ago, however I am getting regular infections via Firefox and Seamonkey and am really tired of running ComboFix for some nasty rootkits installed after Firefox gets into its knees. Anyone can tell me which browser to use? I use Chrome solely for Google stuff, I don't want to be monitored everywhere else. Playing also with Safari due to its HTML5, but have no clue about its security...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As many I escaped IE long time ago , however I am getting regular infections via Firefox and Seamonkey and am really tired of running ComboFix for some nasty rootkits installed after Firefox gets into its knees .
Anyone can tell me which browser to use ?
I use Chrome solely for Google stuff , I do n't want to be monitored everywhere else .
Playing also with Safari due to its HTML5 , but have no clue about its security.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many I escaped IE long time ago, however I am getting regular infections via Firefox and Seamonkey and am really tired of running ComboFix for some nasty rootkits installed after Firefox gets into its knees.
Anyone can tell me which browser to use?
I use Chrome solely for Google stuff, I don't want to be monitored everywhere else.
Playing also with Safari due to its HTML5, but have no clue about its security...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817788</id>
	<title>Re:This is exactly why I let my kids play with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263903420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same reason I masturbate, sure I know masturbating causes hairy hands but not doing it would just give me a false sense of security given there are numerous other things I can mastu...oh...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same reason I masturbate , sure I know masturbating causes hairy hands but not doing it would just give me a false sense of security given there are numerous other things I can mastu...oh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same reason I masturbate, sure I know masturbating causes hairy hands but not doing it would just give me a false sense of security given there are numerous other things I can mastu...oh...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814948</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1263823200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think you're missing the whole crux of their argument. Yes, IE was the source of at least one of the security holes, but France and Germany are mandating</p></div><p>sorry, but I have to object to your choice of word here (mandating): as you say yourself later in your post, they are merely "recommending" to dump that browser.<br>Needless to say this was long overdue and likely not merely based on the latest exploit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're missing the whole crux of their argument .
Yes , IE was the source of at least one of the security holes , but France and Germany are mandatingsorry , but I have to object to your choice of word here ( mandating ) : as you say yourself later in your post , they are merely " recommending " to dump that browser.Needless to say this was long overdue and likely not merely based on the latest exploit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're missing the whole crux of their argument.
Yes, IE was the source of at least one of the security holes, but France and Germany are mandatingsorry, but I have to object to your choice of word here (mandating): as you say yourself later in your post, they are merely "recommending" to dump that browser.Needless to say this was long overdue and likely not merely based on the latest exploit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813066</id>
	<title>love the recommendation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263811740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The link to the official French recommendation is here: <a href="http://www.certa.ssi.gouv.fr/site/CERTA-2010-ALE-001/index.html" title="ssi.gouv.fr">CERTA-2010-ALE-001</a> [ssi.gouv.fr]</p><p>Quoting from it (rough translation): "while waiting for the editor [Microsoft] to correct this vulnerability, we recommend people use an alternate browser.</p><p>--<br>are you a startup founder <a href="http://fairsoftware.net/publicProjects" title="fairsoftware.net">looking for co-founders</a> [fairsoftware.net]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The link to the official French recommendation is here : CERTA-2010-ALE-001 [ ssi.gouv.fr ] Quoting from it ( rough translation ) : " while waiting for the editor [ Microsoft ] to correct this vulnerability , we recommend people use an alternate browser.--are you a startup founder looking for co-founders [ fairsoftware.net ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The link to the official French recommendation is here: CERTA-2010-ALE-001 [ssi.gouv.fr]Quoting from it (rough translation): "while waiting for the editor [Microsoft] to correct this vulnerability, we recommend people use an alternate browser.--are you a startup founder looking for co-founders [fairsoftware.net]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813576</id>
	<title>Re:please stop using ie6 &amp; ie7 &amp; ie8</title>
	<author>tuppe666</author>
	<datestamp>1263814140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The issue is for all browsers after IE5, so in this instance perhaps you could suggest going back to an earlier version of IE. See earlier Microsoft lies regarding this. They have there own PR to spin this. You do not need to help. Personally I think promoting anything but a monoculture of browsers is acceptable, as everyone is more than aware of what happens then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is for all browsers after IE5 , so in this instance perhaps you could suggest going back to an earlier version of IE .
See earlier Microsoft lies regarding this .
They have there own PR to spin this .
You do not need to help .
Personally I think promoting anything but a monoculture of browsers is acceptable , as everyone is more than aware of what happens then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is for all browsers after IE5, so in this instance perhaps you could suggest going back to an earlier version of IE.
See earlier Microsoft lies regarding this.
They have there own PR to spin this.
You do not need to help.
Personally I think promoting anything but a monoculture of browsers is acceptable, as everyone is more than aware of what happens then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813612</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263814260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One reason I don't like to upgrade to newer versions of IE is because they seem to have HUGE memory leaks. Although I almost always use Firefox, I do need to keep IE around for certainly pain-in-the-ass poorly designed sites that require it. IE 7 takes FOREVER to open and close, especially if it has been left open a long time. There must be memory leaks large enough to drive a truck through. What is Microsoft's excuse for this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One reason I do n't like to upgrade to newer versions of IE is because they seem to have HUGE memory leaks .
Although I almost always use Firefox , I do need to keep IE around for certainly pain-in-the-ass poorly designed sites that require it .
IE 7 takes FOREVER to open and close , especially if it has been left open a long time .
There must be memory leaks large enough to drive a truck through .
What is Microsoft 's excuse for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One reason I don't like to upgrade to newer versions of IE is because they seem to have HUGE memory leaks.
Although I almost always use Firefox, I do need to keep IE around for certainly pain-in-the-ass poorly designed sites that require it.
IE 7 takes FOREVER to open and close, especially if it has been left open a long time.
There must be memory leaks large enough to drive a truck through.
What is Microsoft's excuse for this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813776</id>
	<title>Re:This just in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263815220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the regular Queen of England?  What does she recommend?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the regular Queen of England ?
What does she recommend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the regular Queen of England?
What does she recommend?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815600</id>
	<title>Re:And you all laughed</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263830280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot to mention that a avian-dropped baguette was responsible for knocking the LHC offline... but was that good or bad?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to mention that a avian-dropped baguette was responsible for knocking the LHC offline... but was that good or bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to mention that a avian-dropped baguette was responsible for knocking the LHC offline... but was that good or bad?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813370</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1263813240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article referenced.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While research indicates that the Internet Explorer zero-day used in the attacks could be used on any version of Internet Explorer, even on Windows 7...</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article referenced.While research indicates that the Internet Explorer zero-day used in the attacks could be used on any version of Internet Explorer , even on Windows 7.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article referenced.While research indicates that the Internet Explorer zero-day used in the attacks could be used on any version of Internet Explorer, even on Windows 7...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813688</id>
	<title>Re:Tear down</title>
	<author>easyTree</author>
	<datestamp>1263814680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe destroying one link in the chain destroys the chain, but it is more likely that they will find a different link to continue the attack.</p></div></blockquote><p>If only they had the power to make it illegal to use IE6 and the rest of Europe followed-suit and if only it was a permanent decision [and I want a pony...] then every web developer would owe the Chinese haX0rs a debt of gratitude for having triggered a series of events leading to their being freed from the eternal-hell that is trying to make websites work in IE6<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe destroying one link in the chain destroys the chain , but it is more likely that they will find a different link to continue the attack.If only they had the power to make it illegal to use IE6 and the rest of Europe followed-suit and if only it was a permanent decision [ and I want a pony... ] then every web developer would owe the Chinese haX0rs a debt of gratitude for having triggered a series of events leading to their being freed from the eternal-hell that is trying to make websites work in IE6 : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe destroying one link in the chain destroys the chain, but it is more likely that they will find a different link to continue the attack.If only they had the power to make it illegal to use IE6 and the rest of Europe followed-suit and if only it was a permanent decision [and I want a pony...] then every web developer would owe the Chinese haX0rs a debt of gratitude for having triggered a series of events leading to their being freed from the eternal-hell that is trying to make websites work in IE6 :D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813800</id>
	<title>This is exactly why I let my kids play with</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1263815340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the toys we know have been painted with paint with high amounts of lead in it.</p><p>After all, if I took those away from them I'd just be giving myself a false sense of security since it's likely there are some other toys with lead in them that I don't know about.</p><p>Same reason I smoke, sure I know smoking causes cancer but not doing it would just give me a false sense of security given there are numerous other things that also cause cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the toys we know have been painted with paint with high amounts of lead in it.After all , if I took those away from them I 'd just be giving myself a false sense of security since it 's likely there are some other toys with lead in them that I do n't know about.Same reason I smoke , sure I know smoking causes cancer but not doing it would just give me a false sense of security given there are numerous other things that also cause cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the toys we know have been painted with paint with high amounts of lead in it.After all, if I took those away from them I'd just be giving myself a false sense of security since it's likely there are some other toys with lead in them that I don't know about.Same reason I smoke, sure I know smoking causes cancer but not doing it would just give me a false sense of security given there are numerous other things that also cause cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813988</id>
	<title>Are the changes that different from Win2k and XP?</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1263816360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are the internals of Windows 2000 and Windows XP so different that Microsoft can't put IE8 on Win2k?</p><p>I mean, it seems like that's the obvious solution, and Win2k's on extended support still, so... and XP only identifies itself as NT 5.1 (Win2k is NT 5.0).</p><p>Always amuses me to see "You should upgrade to IE8!" then click the "Upgrade" button and say "Just click Download to get IE8!", scroll down, and then it says "IE8 is not available for your operating system". You'd think Microsoft's update site could've done the check earlier...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the internals of Windows 2000 and Windows XP so different that Microsoft ca n't put IE8 on Win2k ? I mean , it seems like that 's the obvious solution , and Win2k 's on extended support still , so... and XP only identifies itself as NT 5.1 ( Win2k is NT 5.0 ) .Always amuses me to see " You should upgrade to IE8 !
" then click the " Upgrade " button and say " Just click Download to get IE8 !
" , scroll down , and then it says " IE8 is not available for your operating system " .
You 'd think Microsoft 's update site could 've done the check earlier.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the internals of Windows 2000 and Windows XP so different that Microsoft can't put IE8 on Win2k?I mean, it seems like that's the obvious solution, and Win2k's on extended support still, so... and XP only identifies itself as NT 5.1 (Win2k is NT 5.0).Always amuses me to see "You should upgrade to IE8!
" then click the "Upgrade" button and say "Just click Download to get IE8!
", scroll down, and then it says "IE8 is not available for your operating system".
You'd think Microsoft's update site could've done the check earlier...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30831386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30834328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30819038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30819384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30819566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30820828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30818660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_18_2030224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30817994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30831386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30819384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815554
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30834328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814756
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30815716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30820828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30818660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30816810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30814230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30819038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_18_2030224.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30819566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_18_2030224.30813442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
