<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_27_1638216</id>
	<title>Tracking Browsers Without Cookies Or IP Addresses?</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1264612980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Peter Eckersley writes <i>"The EFF has <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/help-eff-research-web-browser-tracking">launched a research project called Panopticlick</a>, to determine whether seemingly innocuous browser configuration information (like User Agent strings, plugin versions and fonts) may create unique <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device\_fingerprint">fingerprints</a> that allow web users to be tracked, even if they limit or delete cookies.  <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/tracking-by-user-agent">Preliminary results</a> indicate that the User Agent string alone has 10.5 bits of entropy, which means that for a typical Internet user, only one in about 1,500 (2 ^ 10.5) others will share their User Agent string.
If you <a href="http://panopticlick.eff.org/">visit Panopticlick</a>, you can get a reading of how rare or unique your browser configuration is, as well as helping EFF to collect better data about this problem and how best to <a href="http://panopticlick.eff.org/self-defense.php">defend against it</a>."</i>  I remember laughing years ago when I would see users who had modified their user agent string with some sort of defiant pro-privacy message, without realizing that their action made them uniquely identifiable out of hundreds of thousands of others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peter Eckersley writes " The EFF has launched a research project called Panopticlick , to determine whether seemingly innocuous browser configuration information ( like User Agent strings , plugin versions and fonts ) may create unique fingerprints that allow web users to be tracked , even if they limit or delete cookies .
Preliminary results indicate that the User Agent string alone has 10.5 bits of entropy , which means that for a typical Internet user , only one in about 1,500 ( 2 ^ 10.5 ) others will share their User Agent string .
If you visit Panopticlick , you can get a reading of how rare or unique your browser configuration is , as well as helping EFF to collect better data about this problem and how best to defend against it .
" I remember laughing years ago when I would see users who had modified their user agent string with some sort of defiant pro-privacy message , without realizing that their action made them uniquely identifiable out of hundreds of thousands of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peter Eckersley writes "The EFF has launched a research project called Panopticlick, to determine whether seemingly innocuous browser configuration information (like User Agent strings, plugin versions and fonts) may create unique fingerprints that allow web users to be tracked, even if they limit or delete cookies.
Preliminary results indicate that the User Agent string alone has 10.5 bits of entropy, which means that for a typical Internet user, only one in about 1,500 (2 ^ 10.5) others will share their User Agent string.
If you visit Panopticlick, you can get a reading of how rare or unique your browser configuration is, as well as helping EFF to collect better data about this problem and how best to defend against it.
"  I remember laughing years ago when I would see users who had modified their user agent string with some sort of defiant pro-privacy message, without realizing that their action made them uniquely identifiable out of hundreds of thousands of others.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921070</id>
	<title>Mr Taco</title>
	<author>Vlijmen Fileer</author>
	<datestamp>1264621500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I remember laughing years ago when I would see users who had modified their user agent string with some sort of defiant pro-privacy message, without realizing that their action made them uniquely identifiable out of hundreds of thousands of others."</p><p>Mr Taco must have laughed the laugh of a naive person.</p><p>These people made a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/statement/,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/trading/ this little aspect of their privacy in the process.  Seeing they were at least smart enough to see there is a thorny privacy issue with the user agent string, it's also logical to assume they were very much aware of this trade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I remember laughing years ago when I would see users who had modified their user agent string with some sort of defiant pro-privacy message , without realizing that their action made them uniquely identifiable out of hundreds of thousands of others .
" Mr Taco must have laughed the laugh of a naive person.These people made a /statement/ , /trading/ this little aspect of their privacy in the process .
Seeing they were at least smart enough to see there is a thorny privacy issue with the user agent string , it 's also logical to assume they were very much aware of this trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I remember laughing years ago when I would see users who had modified their user agent string with some sort of defiant pro-privacy message, without realizing that their action made them uniquely identifiable out of hundreds of thousands of others.
"Mr Taco must have laughed the laugh of a naive person.These people made a /statement/, /trading/ this little aspect of their privacy in the process.
Seeing they were at least smart enough to see there is a thorny privacy issue with the user agent string, it's also logical to assume they were very much aware of this trade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30944214</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>Liquidscript</author>
	<datestamp>1264686660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flash+settings+manager" title="lmgtfy.com" rel="nofollow">http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flash+settings+manager</a> [lmgtfy.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //lmgtfy.com/ ? q = flash + settings + manager [ lmgtfy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flash+settings+manager [lmgtfy.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922696</id>
	<title>Re:Plugins List</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha, i never expected it would be so thorough either.<br>Mines was entirely unique upon testing.</p><p>I'm scared, somebody hold me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , i never expected it would be so thorough either.Mines was entirely unique upon testing.I 'm scared , somebody hold me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, i never expected it would be so thorough either.Mines was entirely unique upon testing.I'm scared, somebody hold me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920354</id>
	<title>Reloading does cut the numbers in half</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And further reloading is a good way to make your browser readings more popular and thus less unique<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And further reloading is a good way to make your browser readings more popular and thus less unique ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And further reloading is a good way to make your browser readings more popular and thus less unique ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30923824</id>
	<title>14.63 bits of entropy and shrinking!</title>
	<author>cfriedt</author>
	<datestamp>1264584540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently My browser's UA was the first of its kind after 25,430 visitors<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) My guess is that it has to do with the Chrome build number.</p><p>Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.0.249.43 Safari/532.5</p><p>14.63 bits of entropy and shrinking!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently My browser 's UA was the first of its kind after 25,430 visitors ; - ) My guess is that it has to do with the Chrome build number.Mozilla/5.0 ( X11 ; U ; Linux i686 ; en-US ) AppleWebKit/532.5 ( KHTML , like Gecko ) Chrome/4.0.249.43 Safari/532.514.63 bits of entropy and shrinking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently My browser's UA was the first of its kind after 25,430 visitors ;-) My guess is that it has to do with the Chrome build number.Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.0.249.43 Safari/532.514.63 bits of entropy and shrinking!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919982</id>
	<title>user agent guessing site</title>
	<author>allo</author>
	<datestamp>1264617960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://laxu.de/useragent.php" title="laxu.de" rel="nofollow">http://laxu.de/useragent.php</a> [laxu.de]

test it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a bit out of date (thinks arora is googlebot), but its still working good for the most common browsers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //laxu.de/useragent.php [ laxu.de ] test it ... a bit out of date ( thinks arora is googlebot ) , but its still working good for the most common browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://laxu.de/useragent.php [laxu.de]

test it ... a bit out of date (thinks arora is googlebot), but its still working good for the most common browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922880</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264625400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I compared between IE, Firefox, Chrome and Opera. Both IE and Firefox were completely unique even with the user agent because of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET versions there. Opera and Chrome were quite <b>genetic<b>.</b></b></i> <br>
Well... I've heard genes are quite unique!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I compared between IE , Firefox , Chrome and Opera .
Both IE and Firefox were completely unique even with the user agent because of the .NET versions there .
Opera and Chrome were quite genetic .
Well... I 've heard genes are quite unique !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I compared between IE, Firefox, Chrome and Opera.
Both IE and Firefox were completely unique even with the user agent because of the .NET versions there.
Opera and Chrome were quite genetic.
Well... I've heard genes are quite unique!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919726</id>
	<title>I get this ...</title>
	<author>BlueTrin</author>
	<datestamp>1264616880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Warning: mysql\_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Can't connect to MySQL server on 'db' (4) in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 3
<br> <br>
Warning: mysql\_select\_db() [function.mysql-select-db]: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (2) in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4
<br> <br>
Warning: mysql\_select\_db() [function.mysql-select-db]: A link to the server could not be established in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4
<br> <br>
Has the site been just slashdotted ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Warning : mysql \ _connect ( ) [ function.mysql-connect ] : Ca n't connect to MySQL server on 'db ' ( 4 ) in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 3 Warning : mysql \ _select \ _db ( ) [ function.mysql-select-db ] : Ca n't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock ' ( 2 ) in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4 Warning : mysql \ _select \ _db ( ) [ function.mysql-select-db ] : A link to the server could not be established in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4 Has the site been just slashdotted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warning: mysql\_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Can't connect to MySQL server on 'db' (4) in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 3
 
Warning: mysql\_select\_db() [function.mysql-select-db]: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (2) in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4
 
Warning: mysql\_select\_db() [function.mysql-select-db]: A link to the server could not be established in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4
 
Has the site been just slashdotted ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921104</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1264621560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True... and since you can revisit the page to see your updated stats, and it remembers you&rsquo;ve been there, I can only assume it uses a cookie (they could track via IP, but I wouldn&rsquo;t consider that anonymous and I don&rsquo;t think anyone else with any sense would either). Looking at my cookies, I have a PHPSESSID, so apparently that is how they&rsquo;re avoiding double-counting.</p><p>It seems to me, though, that users without cookies would be re-counted every time they visited, or perhaps it would not count them at all, but just display the results without saving them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True... and since you can revisit the page to see your updated stats , and it remembers you    ve been there , I can only assume it uses a cookie ( they could track via IP , but I wouldn    t consider that anonymous and I don    t think anyone else with any sense would either ) .
Looking at my cookies , I have a PHPSESSID , so apparently that is how they    re avoiding double-counting.It seems to me , though , that users without cookies would be re-counted every time they visited , or perhaps it would not count them at all , but just display the results without saving them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True... and since you can revisit the page to see your updated stats, and it remembers you’ve been there, I can only assume it uses a cookie (they could track via IP, but I wouldn’t consider that anonymous and I don’t think anyone else with any sense would either).
Looking at my cookies, I have a PHPSESSID, so apparently that is how they’re avoiding double-counting.It seems to me, though, that users without cookies would be re-counted every time they visited, or perhaps it would not count them at all, but just display the results without saving them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924896</id>
	<title>There is a Firefox plugin for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>User Agent Switcher: <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59</a> [mozilla.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>User Agent Switcher : https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59 [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>User Agent Switcher: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59 [mozilla.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919922</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is nothing new. RSA has been using this to detect fraud for quite a while now.</p><p>Cookies, Plugins, User Agents, Timezone, Browser, detectable browser settings, etc.</p><p>They easily make up a very accurate fraud detection system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing new .
RSA has been using this to detect fraud for quite a while now.Cookies , Plugins , User Agents , Timezone , Browser , detectable browser settings , etc.They easily make up a very accurate fraud detection system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing new.
RSA has been using this to detect fraud for quite a while now.Cookies, Plugins, User Agents, Timezone, Browser, detectable browser settings, etc.They easily make up a very accurate fraud detection system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920994</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks EFF. I never thought about that.</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1264621260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Gentoo box: &quot;Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 12,564 tested so far.&quot;
<br> <br>
My Ubuntu box: &quot;Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 13,730 tested so far.&quot;
<br> <br>
My Mac: &quot;Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 13,337 tested so far.&quot;
<br> <br>
I didn't realize I was so unusual<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Gentoo box : " Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 12,564 tested so far .
" My Ubuntu box : " Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 13,730 tested so far .
" My Mac : " Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 13,337 tested so far .
" I did n't realize I was so unusual ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Gentoo box: "Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 12,564 tested so far.
"
 
My Ubuntu box: "Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 13,730 tested so far.
"
 
My Mac: "Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 13,337 tested so far.
"
 
I didn't realize I was so unusual ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920512</id>
	<title>Re:I'm unique!</title>
	<author>Maestro485</author>
	<datestamp>1264619880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me too, but it's up to 8223 in the half hour since you posted. The sample is growing pretty quick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too , but it 's up to 8223 in the half hour since you posted .
The sample is growing pretty quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too, but it's up to 8223 in the half hour since you posted.
The sample is growing pretty quick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931070</id>
	<title>Very unique here.</title>
	<author>metrix007</author>
	<datestamp>1264674540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>16.11 unique bits.</p><p>I suspect mainly because I have Quake Live installed.</p><p>I am also running Firefox Portable on Windows Server R2.</p><p>R2 should report the same as window 7 does, and firefox portable should not be able to be distinguishable from Firefox.</p><p>My resolution of 1680x1050 may also be less common.</p><p>After turning off JS, it became more interesting.</p><p>Still 10 unique bits, and only 1 in 1093 other browers did one have the same fingerprint.</p><p>I guess my firefox portable is giving off a unique string.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>16.11 unique bits.I suspect mainly because I have Quake Live installed.I am also running Firefox Portable on Windows Server R2.R2 should report the same as window 7 does , and firefox portable should not be able to be distinguishable from Firefox.My resolution of 1680x1050 may also be less common.After turning off JS , it became more interesting.Still 10 unique bits , and only 1 in 1093 other browers did one have the same fingerprint.I guess my firefox portable is giving off a unique string .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>16.11 unique bits.I suspect mainly because I have Quake Live installed.I am also running Firefox Portable on Windows Server R2.R2 should report the same as window 7 does, and firefox portable should not be able to be distinguishable from Firefox.My resolution of 1680x1050 may also be less common.After turning off JS, it became more interesting.Still 10 unique bits, and only 1 in 1093 other browers did one have the same fingerprint.I guess my firefox portable is giving off a unique string.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931644</id>
	<title>I claim prior art!</title>
	<author>fph il quozientatore</author>
	<datestamp>1264681620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I claim
<a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476918&amp;cid=30425470" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">prior art</a> [slashdot.org]!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I claim prior art [ slashdot.org ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I claim
prior art [slashdot.org]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921926</id>
	<title>Editor is a moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I remember laughing years ago when I would see users who had modified their user agent string with some sort of defiant pro-privacy message, without realizing that their action made them uniquely identifiable out of hundreds of thousands of others."</p><p>Editor is a complete moron.  What were they trying to be private about?  Did you talk to them?  Self-centered moron who both created and destroyed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>When people modified their user agent back in the day when it was commonplace, it wasn't much about being tracked on an individual basis.  It was about keeping the site and web people from trying to make their sites browser, platform, or even plugin specific.  Back then, IE was huge, and sites were going IE specific, even to the point of locking out browsers.</p><p>Modifying the user agent meant, generally, the site didn't have a clue what browser the person was using, and couldn't craft the content and layout.  These were the days when sites wouldn't even render if you were using something other than IE, or Netscape.  It was commonplace then, as it is now, to require a browser, as now it is to require a plugin (like Adobe Flash, that piece of shit).</p><p>It was all for naught, as sites now have gone nearly all Flash, or the layout is browser specific, or lots of JS use.  A lot of content is just a mess, not looking the same from one browser to another, and the content writers have overtaken the user experience so much so that single clicking on icons don't even work so much anymore because of a embedded Flash or JS.</p><p>To say that people were not protecting their privacy--well, jackass, did you know what browser they were using?  Or not?  I doubt you did, so man up, you're laughing at your stupidity in analyzing and understanding the situation about what the users were doing.  They were trying to keep the web true to its original intent of being open to all comers and having pages standardized, something<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. obviously does not believe in given their own site design (as I wait 15 seconds for the captcha to "load").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I remember laughing years ago when I would see users who had modified their user agent string with some sort of defiant pro-privacy message , without realizing that their action made them uniquely identifiable out of hundreds of thousands of others .
" Editor is a complete moron .
What were they trying to be private about ?
Did you talk to them ?
Self-centered moron who both created and destroyed /.When people modified their user agent back in the day when it was commonplace , it was n't much about being tracked on an individual basis .
It was about keeping the site and web people from trying to make their sites browser , platform , or even plugin specific .
Back then , IE was huge , and sites were going IE specific , even to the point of locking out browsers.Modifying the user agent meant , generally , the site did n't have a clue what browser the person was using , and could n't craft the content and layout .
These were the days when sites would n't even render if you were using something other than IE , or Netscape .
It was commonplace then , as it is now , to require a browser , as now it is to require a plugin ( like Adobe Flash , that piece of shit ) .It was all for naught , as sites now have gone nearly all Flash , or the layout is browser specific , or lots of JS use .
A lot of content is just a mess , not looking the same from one browser to another , and the content writers have overtaken the user experience so much so that single clicking on icons do n't even work so much anymore because of a embedded Flash or JS.To say that people were not protecting their privacy--well , jackass , did you know what browser they were using ?
Or not ?
I doubt you did , so man up , you 're laughing at your stupidity in analyzing and understanding the situation about what the users were doing .
They were trying to keep the web true to its original intent of being open to all comers and having pages standardized , something / .
obviously does not believe in given their own site design ( as I wait 15 seconds for the captcha to " load " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I remember laughing years ago when I would see users who had modified their user agent string with some sort of defiant pro-privacy message, without realizing that their action made them uniquely identifiable out of hundreds of thousands of others.
"Editor is a complete moron.
What were they trying to be private about?
Did you talk to them?
Self-centered moron who both created and destroyed /.When people modified their user agent back in the day when it was commonplace, it wasn't much about being tracked on an individual basis.
It was about keeping the site and web people from trying to make their sites browser, platform, or even plugin specific.
Back then, IE was huge, and sites were going IE specific, even to the point of locking out browsers.Modifying the user agent meant, generally, the site didn't have a clue what browser the person was using, and couldn't craft the content and layout.
These were the days when sites wouldn't even render if you were using something other than IE, or Netscape.
It was commonplace then, as it is now, to require a browser, as now it is to require a plugin (like Adobe Flash, that piece of shit).It was all for naught, as sites now have gone nearly all Flash, or the layout is browser specific, or lots of JS use.
A lot of content is just a mess, not looking the same from one browser to another, and the content writers have overtaken the user experience so much so that single clicking on icons don't even work so much anymore because of a embedded Flash or JS.To say that people were not protecting their privacy--well, jackass, did you know what browser they were using?
Or not?
I doubt you did, so man up, you're laughing at your stupidity in analyzing and understanding the situation about what the users were doing.
They were trying to keep the web true to its original intent of being open to all comers and having pages standardized, something /.
obviously does not believe in given their own site design (as I wait 15 seconds for the captcha to "load").</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920652</id>
	<title>NoScript</title>
	<author>mewsenews</author>
	<datestamp>1264620300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With javascript disabled, they said my browser was 1 in 140.</p><p>With javascript enabled, they said my browser was unique among all browsers seen so far.</p><p>NoScript is so great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With javascript disabled , they said my browser was 1 in 140.With javascript enabled , they said my browser was unique among all browsers seen so far.NoScript is so great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With javascript disabled, they said my browser was 1 in 140.With javascript enabled, they said my browser was unique among all browsers seen so far.NoScript is so great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30925490</id>
	<title>Interesting...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264589520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With NoScript blocking eff.org, I was unique to about 1:7000.  Once I allowed eff.org on NoScript, I came up as completely unique - Fonts and Plugins seemed to be the most unique factors (as you might expect).</p><p>To be honest, if I was using this as a tracking tool I'd probably not put a lot of stock in Useragent, but instead on more unique things like fonts and plugins.  Useragents can be spoofed easily, and are generally not that unique.  Fonts and plugins, on the other hand, are less likely to be spoofed and are a lot more unique to the user.  A lot of people have installed or deleted at least one font on their system, and that's a relatively unique fingerprint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With NoScript blocking eff.org , I was unique to about 1 : 7000 .
Once I allowed eff.org on NoScript , I came up as completely unique - Fonts and Plugins seemed to be the most unique factors ( as you might expect ) .To be honest , if I was using this as a tracking tool I 'd probably not put a lot of stock in Useragent , but instead on more unique things like fonts and plugins .
Useragents can be spoofed easily , and are generally not that unique .
Fonts and plugins , on the other hand , are less likely to be spoofed and are a lot more unique to the user .
A lot of people have installed or deleted at least one font on their system , and that 's a relatively unique fingerprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With NoScript blocking eff.org, I was unique to about 1:7000.
Once I allowed eff.org on NoScript, I came up as completely unique - Fonts and Plugins seemed to be the most unique factors (as you might expect).To be honest, if I was using this as a tracking tool I'd probably not put a lot of stock in Useragent, but instead on more unique things like fonts and plugins.
Useragents can be spoofed easily, and are generally not that unique.
Fonts and plugins, on the other hand, are less likely to be spoofed and are a lot more unique to the user.
A lot of people have installed or deleted at least one font on their system, and that's a relatively unique fingerprint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922250</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks EFF. I never thought about that.</title>
	<author>TropicalCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1264623960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get: "Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 17,127 tested so far." Gee - sure glad they don't know my URL. Anyhow - that was using Chrome. Then tried the same test in Chrome's incognito mode, and the number of identifying bits went down by a whole point, to 1 in 9000 or so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get : " Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 17,127 tested so far .
" Gee - sure glad they do n't know my URL .
Anyhow - that was using Chrome .
Then tried the same test in Chrome 's incognito mode , and the number of identifying bits went down by a whole point , to 1 in 9000 or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get: "Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 17,127 tested so far.
" Gee - sure glad they don't know my URL.
Anyhow - that was using Chrome.
Then tried the same test in Chrome's incognito mode, and the number of identifying bits went down by a whole point, to 1 in 9000 or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920214</id>
	<title>I'm unique!  Not so fast...</title>
	<author>cvtan</author>
	<datestamp>1264618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The web site says I am unique (well I knew that).  I'm still running WIN7 RC..  Maybe I should change the ver to WIN98ME.  Then I would be unique and certifiable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web site says I am unique ( well I knew that ) .
I 'm still running WIN7 RC.. Maybe I should change the ver to WIN98ME .
Then I would be unique and certifiable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web site says I am unique (well I knew that).
I'm still running WIN7 RC..  Maybe I should change the ver to WIN98ME.
Then I would be unique and certifiable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919828</id>
	<title>All bow before Taco</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1264617300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mighty webmeister, who invented looking at web server logs.   Navel-gaze much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mighty webmeister , who invented looking at web server logs .
Navel-gaze much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mighty webmeister, who invented looking at web server logs.
Navel-gaze much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30923420</id>
	<title>Noscript no help?</title>
	<author>godel\_56</author>
	<datestamp>1264583580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All three of the browsers on my system (Firefox 3.6, Opera 10.x and IE8) show as unique, and I <i>do</i> have Noscript enabled on Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All three of the browsers on my system ( Firefox 3.6 , Opera 10.x and IE8 ) show as unique , and I do have Noscript enabled on Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All three of the browsers on my system (Firefox 3.6, Opera 10.x and IE8) show as unique, and I do have Noscript enabled on Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054</id>
	<title>Lynx apparently more popular than I thought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264618320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Browser Characteristic : User Agent<br>bits of identifying information : 11.09+<br>one in x browsers have this value : 2183<br>value : Lynx/2.8.5rel.1 libwww-FM/2.14FM SSL-MM/1.4.1 OpenSSL/0.9.7d-dev</p><p>(Course, i'm also two minor releases behind...but still, 1 per 2000 is more common than I would've guessed)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Browser Characteristic : User Agentbits of identifying information : 11.09 + one in x browsers have this value : 2183value : Lynx/2.8.5rel.1 libwww-FM/2.14FM SSL-MM/1.4.1 OpenSSL/0.9.7d-dev ( Course , i 'm also two minor releases behind...but still , 1 per 2000 is more common than I would 've guessed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Browser Characteristic : User Agentbits of identifying information : 11.09+one in x browsers have this value : 2183value : Lynx/2.8.5rel.1 libwww-FM/2.14FM SSL-MM/1.4.1 OpenSSL/0.9.7d-dev(Course, i'm also two minor releases behind...but still, 1 per 2000 is more common than I would've guessed)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919804</id>
	<title>in other news</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1264617180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Researches have found a way to track web sites based on the MySQL errors they produce when they're slashdotted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Researches have found a way to track web sites based on the MySQL errors they produce when they 're slashdotted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Researches have found a way to track web sites based on the MySQL errors they produce when they're slashdotted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921046</id>
	<title>Firesomething</title>
	<author>nevermore94</author>
	<datestamp>1264621380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny thing is, my browser is unique every time I go there, thanks to Firesomething.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing is , my browser is unique every time I go there , thanks to Firesomething .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing is, my browser is unique every time I go there, thanks to Firesomething.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924582</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264586820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another useful thing is to visit <a href="http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings\_manager02.html" title="macromedia.com" rel="nofollow">Macromedia Flash Settings</a> [macromedia.com] page to disable Flash storage/audio/video settings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another useful thing is to visit Macromedia Flash Settings [ macromedia.com ] page to disable Flash storage/audio/video settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another useful thing is to visit Macromedia Flash Settings [macromedia.com] page to disable Flash storage/audio/video settings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920822</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks EFF. I never thought about that.</title>
	<author>RKThoadan</author>
	<datestamp>1264620840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome: Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 10,511 tested so far.<br>IE6: Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 11,542 tested so far.<br>Firefox: Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 11,788 tested so far.</p><p>Boy do I feel special.  I'm surprised IE6 came back unique.  It looks like it was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET's fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome : Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 10,511 tested so far.IE6 : Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 11,542 tested so far.Firefox : Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 11,788 tested so far.Boy do I feel special .
I 'm surprised IE6 came back unique .
It looks like it was .NET 's fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome: Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 10,511 tested so far.IE6: Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 11,542 tested so far.Firefox: Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 11,788 tested so far.Boy do I feel special.
I'm surprised IE6 came back unique.
It looks like it was .NET's fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921180</id>
	<title>Ubuntu LiveCD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the Ubuntu Live CD, I'm unique among 14998 people.</p><p>This is an unmodified Live CD running default everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Ubuntu Live CD , I 'm unique among 14998 people.This is an unmodified Live CD running default everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Ubuntu Live CD, I'm unique among 14998 people.This is an unmodified Live CD running default everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922670</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks EFF. I never thought about that.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264624980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security trough obscurity never works. Your argument is the same, as that of a company that is suing people who publish their findings about security holes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security trough obscurity never works .
Your argument is the same , as that of a company that is suing people who publish their findings about security holes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security trough obscurity never works.
Your argument is the same, as that of a company that is suing people who publish their findings about security holes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.31050678</id>
	<title>Oh deary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265482020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 589,355 tested so far.</p><p>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 19.17 bits of identifying information.</p><p>FUUUUUUUUU-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 589,355 tested so far.Currently , we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 19.17 bits of identifying information.FUUUUUUUUU-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 589,355 tested so far.Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 19.17 bits of identifying information.FUUUUUUUUU-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920110</id>
	<title>Needs some more work.</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1264618560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't seem to work that well. I know for sure that my browser's UA string is globally unique - and am still<br>
told that one in 4316 browsers will have that UA string.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't seem to work that well .
I know for sure that my browser 's UA string is globally unique - and am still told that one in 4316 browsers will have that UA string .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't seem to work that well.
I know for sure that my browser's UA string is globally unique - and am still
told that one in 4316 browsers will have that UA string.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920096</id>
	<title>I'm unique!</title>
	<author>eddy</author>
	<datestamp>1264618560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woho!</p><p>"<em>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 3,026 tested so far.</em>"</p><p>3026 is a super small sample though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woho !
" Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 3,026 tested so far .
" 3026 is a super small sample though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woho!
"Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 3,026 tested so far.
"3026 is a super small sample though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920614</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks EFF. I never thought about that.</title>
	<author>Fartypants</author>
	<datestamp>1264620120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the EFF gives a shout out to browserspy.dk for the font detection code and to <a href="https://labs.isecpartners.com/breadcrumbs/breadcrumbs.html" title="isecpartners.com" rel="nofollow">breadcrumbs</a> [isecpartners.com] for supercookie help, so I think it's safe to say those guys had thought of this idea.

Good to see that the EFF is still relying on tried and true methods of tracking, though.  The Panopticlick site drops a session ID cookie to track users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the EFF gives a shout out to browserspy.dk for the font detection code and to breadcrumbs [ isecpartners.com ] for supercookie help , so I think it 's safe to say those guys had thought of this idea .
Good to see that the EFF is still relying on tried and true methods of tracking , though .
The Panopticlick site drops a session ID cookie to track users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the EFF gives a shout out to browserspy.dk for the font detection code and to breadcrumbs [isecpartners.com] for supercookie help, so I think it's safe to say those guys had thought of this idea.
Good to see that the EFF is still relying on tried and true methods of tracking, though.
The Panopticlick site drops a session ID cookie to track users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924188</id>
	<title>I just ran the test and it said...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264585620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That I am unique among all the browsers tested!  Awesome!!! That's pretty good, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That I am unique among all the browsers tested !
Awesome ! ! ! That 's pretty good , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That I am unique among all the browsers tested!
Awesome!!! That's pretty good, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919892</id>
	<title>Re:I get this ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to send this link to my boss, now that MySQL has crapped its pants.</p><p>For the past few months we've been trying to get him to allow us to move some of our databases over to PostgreSQL, from Oracle. But he's been reading some white papers and crap like that about how MySQL is supposedly better.</p><p>As an experienced DBA, I know that isn't true by a longshot. And as the Slashdotting of this site shows, MySQL is an inferior database unable to handle real-world loads. Hopefully my boss will come to realize this, too.</p><p>Thanks, EFF. You may have just helped the world avoid another MySQL deployment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to send this link to my boss , now that MySQL has crapped its pants.For the past few months we 've been trying to get him to allow us to move some of our databases over to PostgreSQL , from Oracle .
But he 's been reading some white papers and crap like that about how MySQL is supposedly better.As an experienced DBA , I know that is n't true by a longshot .
And as the Slashdotting of this site shows , MySQL is an inferior database unable to handle real-world loads .
Hopefully my boss will come to realize this , too.Thanks , EFF .
You may have just helped the world avoid another MySQL deployment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to send this link to my boss, now that MySQL has crapped its pants.For the past few months we've been trying to get him to allow us to move some of our databases over to PostgreSQL, from Oracle.
But he's been reading some white papers and crap like that about how MySQL is supposedly better.As an experienced DBA, I know that isn't true by a longshot.
And as the Slashdotting of this site shows, MySQL is an inferior database unable to handle real-world loads.
Hopefully my boss will come to realize this, too.Thanks, EFF.
You may have just helped the world avoid another MySQL deployment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919970</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Jonas Buyl</author>
	<datestamp>1264617840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think nobody guessed anyone would care about visiting a website of a non-profit organization?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think nobody guessed anyone would care about visiting a website of a non-profit organization ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think nobody guessed anyone would care about visiting a website of a non-profit organization?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931072</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264674540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CCleaner can also wipe out Flash cookies.</p><p>Well, it appears I'm almost totally unique. One in 70843 people have my fonts. One in 70843 have my plugins. One in 863.94 have my resolution. I refreshed the page, and all three are going up. Go figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CCleaner can also wipe out Flash cookies.Well , it appears I 'm almost totally unique .
One in 70843 people have my fonts .
One in 70843 have my plugins .
One in 863.94 have my resolution .
I refreshed the page , and all three are going up .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CCleaner can also wipe out Flash cookies.Well, it appears I'm almost totally unique.
One in 70843 people have my fonts.
One in 70843 have my plugins.
One in 863.94 have my resolution.
I refreshed the page, and all three are going up.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30935300</id>
	<title>Old Knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264700760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the mid-90s (before cookies) this is exactly how I tracked sessions for log analysis.  It may be a bit dicey for apps but for anything else it just works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the mid-90s ( before cookies ) this is exactly how I tracked sessions for log analysis .
It may be a bit dicey for apps but for anything else it just works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the mid-90s (before cookies) this is exactly how I tracked sessions for log analysis.
It may be a bit dicey for apps but for anything else it just works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919812</id>
	<title>Nice name</title>
	<author>hodet</author>
	<datestamp>1264617240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Panoti, panoptip...panopticlick.   Sounds like some 0.01 app available in a deb repository.
<p>
<b>Panopticlick 0.01</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Panoti , panoptip...panopticlick .
Sounds like some 0.01 app available in a deb repository .
Panopticlick 0.01</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Panoti, panoptip...panopticlick.
Sounds like some 0.01 app available in a deb repository.
Panopticlick 0.01</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920076</id>
	<title>Woah fonts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264618440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a graphic designer, suppressing the font list would help. Why is it even needed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a graphic designer , suppressing the font list would help .
Why is it even needed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a graphic designer, suppressing the font list would help.
Why is it even needed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30927930</id>
	<title>Owned.</title>
	<author>SCVirus</author>
	<datestamp>1264599120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 48,228 tested so far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 48,228 tested so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 48,228 tested so far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919766</id>
	<title>Dell Default Image</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you are one of the 100,000 using any particular Dell/HP/Apple default install on your pc.</p><p>2 ^ 10.5 is lost of combinations , but is bet there are lots of spikes on some.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you are one of the 100,000 using any particular Dell/HP/Apple default install on your pc.2 ^ 10.5 is lost of combinations , but is bet there are lots of spikes on some .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you are one of the 100,000 using any particular Dell/HP/Apple default install on your pc.2 ^ 10.5 is lost of combinations , but is bet there are lots of spikes on some.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30929874</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 will make this obsolete</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1264616340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Once we get IPv6 everywhere, most ISPs will simply assign each user a fixed subnet, since that is so much easier and more efficient than keeping track of dynamic assignements. Same for large networks that currently use NAT.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Not more efficient that my ISP does now. They track users by MAC and always assign same IP address. Technically my IP is dynamic, practically it changed only when I switched to other plan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we get IPv6 everywhere , most ISPs will simply assign each user a fixed subnet , since that is so much easier and more efficient than keeping track of dynamic assignements .
Same for large networks that currently use NAT .
Not more efficient that my ISP does now .
They track users by MAC and always assign same IP address .
Technically my IP is dynamic , practically it changed only when I switched to other plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we get IPv6 everywhere, most ISPs will simply assign each user a fixed subnet, since that is so much easier and more efficient than keeping track of dynamic assignements.
Same for large networks that currently use NAT.
Not more efficient that my ISP does now.
They track users by MAC and always assign same IP address.
Technically my IP is dynamic, practically it changed only when I switched to other plan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922692</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>thsths</author>
	<datestamp>1264624980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; they don't even need those tracking cookies because your browser leaves so much unique data behind it</p><p>It may be unique, but it is not constant, and therefore not as such suitable for tracing. However, if you use it in connection with other data (such as the IP and a tracing cookie) and update your database regularly, you would be able to notice changes of individual parts, including the cookie. They could just restore the cookie based on your likely identity, although that is pretty complicated.</p><p>Overall the thread to privacy through these measures is pretty low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; they do n't even need those tracking cookies because your browser leaves so much unique data behind itIt may be unique , but it is not constant , and therefore not as such suitable for tracing .
However , if you use it in connection with other data ( such as the IP and a tracing cookie ) and update your database regularly , you would be able to notice changes of individual parts , including the cookie .
They could just restore the cookie based on your likely identity , although that is pretty complicated.Overall the thread to privacy through these measures is pretty low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; they don't even need those tracking cookies because your browser leaves so much unique data behind itIt may be unique, but it is not constant, and therefore not as such suitable for tracing.
However, if you use it in connection with other data (such as the IP and a tracing cookie) and update your database regularly, you would be able to notice changes of individual parts, including the cookie.
They could just restore the cookie based on your likely identity, although that is pretty complicated.Overall the thread to privacy through these measures is pretty low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924270</id>
	<title>the button to start the test is an image</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1264585860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the button to start the test is an image without alt text or other controls.<br>eff, please make the site usable without loading images.</p><p>thanks.<br>signed : gprs and other crappy internet connection users worldwide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the button to start the test is an image without alt text or other controls.eff , please make the site usable without loading images.thanks.signed : gprs and other crappy internet connection users worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the button to start the test is an image without alt text or other controls.eff, please make the site usable without loading images.thanks.signed : gprs and other crappy internet connection users worldwide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30927206</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>Relayman</author>
	<datestamp>1264595100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't need to download software to clear Flash cookies. Just go to <a href="http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings\_manager06.html" title="macromedia.com" rel="nofollow">this Web site</a> [macromedia.com] provided by MacroMedia. Don't think that the Settings Manager is an image; it is an actual view of the Flash cookies on your computer. It appears to me that these cookies are shared between my two browsers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need to download software to clear Flash cookies .
Just go to this Web site [ macromedia.com ] provided by MacroMedia .
Do n't think that the Settings Manager is an image ; it is an actual view of the Flash cookies on your computer .
It appears to me that these cookies are shared between my two browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need to download software to clear Flash cookies.
Just go to this Web site [macromedia.com] provided by MacroMedia.
Don't think that the Settings Manager is an image; it is an actual view of the Flash cookies on your computer.
It appears to me that these cookies are shared between my two browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921282</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 will make this obsolete</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1264622040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Once we get IPv6 everywhere, most ISPs will simply assign each user a fixed subnet, since that is so much easier and more efficient than keeping track of dynamic assignements.</i></p><p>Not necessarily.  Unless the user explicitly asks for a routable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/48 or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/56, I'll bet most ISPs just give each user a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64 and have them autoconfigure, in which case there's always the <a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3041.txt" title="ietf.org">Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration</a> [ietf.org] option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we get IPv6 everywhere , most ISPs will simply assign each user a fixed subnet , since that is so much easier and more efficient than keeping track of dynamic assignements.Not necessarily .
Unless the user explicitly asks for a routable /48 or /56 , I 'll bet most ISPs just give each user a /64 and have them autoconfigure , in which case there 's always the Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [ ietf.org ] option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we get IPv6 everywhere, most ISPs will simply assign each user a fixed subnet, since that is so much easier and more efficient than keeping track of dynamic assignements.Not necessarily.
Unless the user explicitly asks for a routable /48 or /56, I'll bet most ISPs just give each user a /64 and have them autoconfigure, in which case there's always the Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [ietf.org] option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924824</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox with noscript showed me as being the same as a few other 1000s of users.</p><p>Disabling noscript made me UNIQUE.</p><p>Good thing I have noscript enabled in pretty much most places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox with noscript showed me as being the same as a few other 1000s of users.Disabling noscript made me UNIQUE.Good thing I have noscript enabled in pretty much most places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox with noscript showed me as being the same as a few other 1000s of users.Disabling noscript made me UNIQUE.Good thing I have noscript enabled in pretty much most places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30923498</id>
	<title>The site uses cookies.</title>
	<author>fava</author>
	<datestamp>1264583760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony is that the site uses cookies to determine if you are unique to the site or have been there before.</p><p>Deleting the cookie (and maybe changing your IP address) and revisiting would introduce spurious duplicates into the database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony is that the site uses cookies to determine if you are unique to the site or have been there before.Deleting the cookie ( and maybe changing your IP address ) and revisiting would introduce spurious duplicates into the database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony is that the site uses cookies to determine if you are unique to the site or have been there before.Deleting the cookie (and maybe changing your IP address) and revisiting would introduce spurious duplicates into the database.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.31007402</id>
	<title>Re:Suggestion for more generic User Agent String</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264931820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We are all V</p><p>or</p><p>We are all Zero</p></div><p>or</p><p>I am Spartacus</p><p>For people who appreciate the original.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are all VorWe are all ZeroorI am SpartacusFor people who appreciate the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are all VorWe are all ZeroorI am SpartacusFor people who appreciate the original.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919890</id>
	<title>Re:I get this ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 173

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 191

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241</htmltext>
<tokenext>Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 173 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 191 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238 Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 173

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 191

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 238

Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 241</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921286</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1264622040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone using the screen size characteristic can be fooled merely by moving my browser to another monitor(mine aren't identical).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone using the screen size characteristic can be fooled merely by moving my browser to another monitor ( mine are n't identical ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone using the screen size characteristic can be fooled merely by moving my browser to another monitor(mine aren't identical).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30925964</id>
	<title>affiliate marketing networks ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264590840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... are doing this for quite a while now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... are doing this for quite a while now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... are doing this for quite a while now</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30934300</id>
	<title>Re:Compiling Firefox</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1264698000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I noticed this years ago, when I noticed that compiling Firefox puts the exact date and time in your user-agent.</p></div><p>Well, duh. Get with the 21st century and go and buy yourself an operating system where they compile the web browser for you.</p><p>(I'm just slightly too nervous to post this without a smiley, so here ya go:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) )</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed this years ago , when I noticed that compiling Firefox puts the exact date and time in your user-agent.Well , duh .
Get with the 21st century and go and buy yourself an operating system where they compile the web browser for you .
( I 'm just slightly too nervous to post this without a smiley , so here ya go : : ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed this years ago, when I noticed that compiling Firefox puts the exact date and time in your user-agent.Well, duh.
Get with the 21st century and go and buy yourself an operating system where they compile the web browser for you.
(I'm just slightly too nervous to post this without a smiley, so here ya go: :) )
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692</id>
	<title>Thanks EFF. I never thought about that.</title>
	<author>cornicefire</author>
	<datestamp>1264616760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad they gave me some new ideas for tracking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad they gave me some new ideas for tracking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad they gave me some new ideas for tracking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922386</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks EFF. I never thought about that.</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1264624320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 19,296 tested so far.</p><p>: (</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 19,296 tested so far .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 19,296 tested so far.
: (</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920050</id>
	<title>IPv6 will make this obsolete</title>
	<author>Fëanáro</author>
	<datestamp>1264618320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once we get IPv6 everywhere, most ISPs will simply assign each user a fixed subnet, since that is so much easier and more efficient than keeping track of dynamic assignements. Same for large networks that currently use NAT.</p><p>So the vast mayority of users will have a unique non-changeable ID, making cookies or this kind of tracking obsolete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we get IPv6 everywhere , most ISPs will simply assign each user a fixed subnet , since that is so much easier and more efficient than keeping track of dynamic assignements .
Same for large networks that currently use NAT.So the vast mayority of users will have a unique non-changeable ID , making cookies or this kind of tracking obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we get IPv6 everywhere, most ISPs will simply assign each user a fixed subnet, since that is so much easier and more efficient than keeping track of dynamic assignements.
Same for large networks that currently use NAT.So the vast mayority of users will have a unique non-changeable ID, making cookies or this kind of tracking obsolete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920606</id>
	<title>EFF's browser test isn't a browser test</title>
	<author>isa-kuruption</author>
	<datestamp>1264620120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I went to their site to find out how "unique" I was, the site launched a java applet.  This isn't tracking browsers at this point, it's tracking JVM's too.  If you're allowed to have the browser launch a third party application, then might as well launch an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe that scours your hard drive and does an HTTP call back to the EFF.... at that point, might as well just say every system is unique.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I went to their site to find out how " unique " I was , the site launched a java applet .
This is n't tracking browsers at this point , it 's tracking JVM 's too .
If you 're allowed to have the browser launch a third party application , then might as well launch an .exe that scours your hard drive and does an HTTP call back to the EFF.... at that point , might as well just say every system is unique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I went to their site to find out how "unique" I was, the site launched a java applet.
This isn't tracking browsers at this point, it's tracking JVM's too.
If you're allowed to have the browser launch a third party application, then might as well launch an .exe that scours your hard drive and does an HTTP call back to the EFF.... at that point, might as well just say every system is unique.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920186</id>
	<title>Re:Lynx apparently more popular than I thought</title>
	<author>Waynelson</author>
	<datestamp>1264618800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That might actually be their current data pool right now though.

Try hitting it again and see if it cuts that number in half.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That might actually be their current data pool right now though .
Try hitting it again and see if it cuts that number in half .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That might actually be their current data pool right now though.
Try hitting it again and see if it cuts that number in half.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920586</id>
	<title>Shows who your true friends are. Thank Microsoft.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an option for privacy enhanced web browsing: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=21EABB90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">IE compatibility test virtualization images.</a> [microsoft.com] A very common OS packaged with a vanilla install of a very common browser, neatly resettable in a virtual machine. Thank you, Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an option for privacy enhanced web browsing : IE compatibility test virtualization images .
[ microsoft.com ] A very common OS packaged with a vanilla install of a very common browser , neatly resettable in a virtual machine .
Thank you , Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an option for privacy enhanced web browsing: IE compatibility test virtualization images.
[microsoft.com] A very common OS packaged with a vanilla install of a very common browser, neatly resettable in a virtual machine.
Thank you, Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30942894</id>
	<title>So I better use my iphone to browse than debian</title>
	<author>droopycom</author>
	<datestamp>1264679160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my iceweasel on debian: unique<br>my iphone: like any other iphone...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my iceweasel on debian : uniquemy iphone : like any other iphone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my iceweasel on debian: uniquemy iphone: like any other iphone...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920294</id>
	<title>I'm twice unique!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My desktop environment is so far unique over 2,357 samples, and my iPod Touch is unique over 2,239 samples.  Interesting.  I know I have some interesting pieces to my desktop, but 1/2357 surprised me.  My iPod Touch being unique, on the other hand, just tells me more about who they've sampled so far than about the uniqueness of the test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My desktop environment is so far unique over 2,357 samples , and my iPod Touch is unique over 2,239 samples .
Interesting. I know I have some interesting pieces to my desktop , but 1/2357 surprised me .
My iPod Touch being unique , on the other hand , just tells me more about who they 've sampled so far than about the uniqueness of the test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My desktop environment is so far unique over 2,357 samples, and my iPod Touch is unique over 2,239 samples.
Interesting.  I know I have some interesting pieces to my desktop, but 1/2357 surprised me.
My iPod Touch being unique, on the other hand, just tells me more about who they've sampled so far than about the uniqueness of the test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30926136</id>
	<title>Unique but stock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264591380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I appear to be the one user to hit the EFF site with a fully-updated HTC Magic with stock firmware from Rogers in Canada, so far. Wonder how many other sites I browse on this thing where I'm the only one with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I appear to be the one user to hit the EFF site with a fully-updated HTC Magic with stock firmware from Rogers in Canada , so far .
Wonder how many other sites I browse on this thing where I 'm the only one with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I appear to be the one user to hit the EFF site with a fully-updated HTC Magic with stock firmware from Rogers in Canada, so far.
Wonder how many other sites I browse on this thing where I'm the only one with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919876</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One extra thing I noticed also. If you disable javascript they weren't able to get any other info than user agent and http\_accept strings.</p><p>So NoScript is good to use. Also in Opera you can do this by disabling global javascript and enabling it on per site basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One extra thing I noticed also .
If you disable javascript they were n't able to get any other info than user agent and http \ _accept strings.So NoScript is good to use .
Also in Opera you can do this by disabling global javascript and enabling it on per site basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One extra thing I noticed also.
If you disable javascript they weren't able to get any other info than user agent and http\_accept strings.So NoScript is good to use.
Also in Opera you can do this by disabling global javascript and enabling it on per site basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919954</id>
	<title>Two data points...</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1264617780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By subtly changing where the errors occur (and which ones are reported), they can correlate your slashdot post with the attempted page fetch...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By subtly changing where the errors occur ( and which ones are reported ) , they can correlate your slashdot post with the attempted page fetch.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By subtly changing where the errors occur (and which ones are reported), they can correlate your slashdot post with the attempted page fetch...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30932838</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 will make this obsolete</title>
	<author>RealGrouchy</author>
	<datestamp>1264692300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the vast mayority of users will have a unique non-changeable ID, making cookies or this kind of tracking obsolete.</p></div><p>Except when I log in with my laptop at home instead of work, or from a hotel or access point?</p><p>- RG&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the vast mayority of users will have a unique non-changeable ID , making cookies or this kind of tracking obsolete.Except when I log in with my laptop at home instead of work , or from a hotel or access point ? - RG &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the vast mayority of users will have a unique non-changeable ID, making cookies or this kind of tracking obsolete.Except when I log in with my laptop at home instead of work, or from a hotel or access point?- RG&gt;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919908</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1264617540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The site says <i>Only anonymous data will be collected by this site.</i>  Yet they are collecting data to see how <i>un-anonymous</i> you actually really are!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The site says Only anonymous data will be collected by this site .
Yet they are collecting data to see how un-anonymous you actually really are !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The site says Only anonymous data will be collected by this site.
Yet they are collecting data to see how un-anonymous you actually really are!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920648</id>
	<title>Plugins List</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264620300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did not realize that my plugins list was the largest source of fingerprint data. I didn't even know it was listed.</p><p>I imagine many people use Opera at my screen resolution, but I'd be interested in seeing how many people shared my particular combo of data (aside from the plugins list).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not realize that my plugins list was the largest source of fingerprint data .
I did n't even know it was listed.I imagine many people use Opera at my screen resolution , but I 'd be interested in seeing how many people shared my particular combo of data ( aside from the plugins list ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not realize that my plugins list was the largest source of fingerprint data.
I didn't even know it was listed.I imagine many people use Opera at my screen resolution, but I'd be interested in seeing how many people shared my particular combo of data (aside from the plugins list).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30926458</id>
	<title>Tor Stew / And EFF Could Do Better Than This!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264592460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mix the following for a nice, tasty, warm stew:</p><p>1. Tor<br>2. Web Proxy #1<br>3. Web Proxy #2<br>4. A touch of SSL<br>5. A sprinkle of VPN<br>6. More Web Proxies to taste<br>7. A dash of SSH<br>8. Randomized User Agents either timed or manually switched<br>9. Noscript and/or Proxy with custom/paranoid settings<br>10. VM and or LiveCD with no HDD drives or other writable medium plugged in</p><p>And the user agent string at the end is useless! You're no longer identified as a tor exit node, either.</p><p>Attacks against Torbutton (see recent Defcon and elsewhere) and other browser plugins are cropping up, we need a browser to do it all, remove the need for addons and a scrubbing proxy, but no one seems to be up to the task (there's a few torifed browser projects but no all-in-one solution).</p><p>Shouldn't EFF be working on something more interesting? Maybe a browser for Tor which removes the need for Proxy/Plugins with Tor? No, instead we get this project which may result in a broken link in X amount of months or years when people forget about it.</p><p>Since tor.eff.org was shuffled off, I've been waiting for something equally interesting, like torbrowser.eff.org.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mix the following for a nice , tasty , warm stew : 1 .
Tor2. Web Proxy # 13 .
Web Proxy # 24 .
A touch of SSL5 .
A sprinkle of VPN6 .
More Web Proxies to taste7 .
A dash of SSH8 .
Randomized User Agents either timed or manually switched9 .
Noscript and/or Proxy with custom/paranoid settings10 .
VM and or LiveCD with no HDD drives or other writable medium plugged inAnd the user agent string at the end is useless !
You 're no longer identified as a tor exit node , either.Attacks against Torbutton ( see recent Defcon and elsewhere ) and other browser plugins are cropping up , we need a browser to do it all , remove the need for addons and a scrubbing proxy , but no one seems to be up to the task ( there 's a few torifed browser projects but no all-in-one solution ) .Should n't EFF be working on something more interesting ?
Maybe a browser for Tor which removes the need for Proxy/Plugins with Tor ?
No , instead we get this project which may result in a broken link in X amount of months or years when people forget about it.Since tor.eff.org was shuffled off , I 've been waiting for something equally interesting , like torbrowser.eff.org .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mix the following for a nice, tasty, warm stew:1.
Tor2. Web Proxy #13.
Web Proxy #24.
A touch of SSL5.
A sprinkle of VPN6.
More Web Proxies to taste7.
A dash of SSH8.
Randomized User Agents either timed or manually switched9.
Noscript and/or Proxy with custom/paranoid settings10.
VM and or LiveCD with no HDD drives or other writable medium plugged inAnd the user agent string at the end is useless!
You're no longer identified as a tor exit node, either.Attacks against Torbutton (see recent Defcon and elsewhere) and other browser plugins are cropping up, we need a browser to do it all, remove the need for addons and a scrubbing proxy, but no one seems to be up to the task (there's a few torifed browser projects but no all-in-one solution).Shouldn't EFF be working on something more interesting?
Maybe a browser for Tor which removes the need for Proxy/Plugins with Tor?
No, instead we get this project which may result in a broken link in X amount of months or years when people forget about it.Since tor.eff.org was shuffled off, I've been waiting for something equally interesting, like torbrowser.eff.org.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920660</id>
	<title>This is scary</title>
	<author>whatajoke</author>
	<datestamp>1264620300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 10,808 tested so far.</b>
<br>
I just realised that the fact that I turn off all my plugins(and java) and have multiple languages enabled, probably gives a completely unique fingerprint to automated stalkers like google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 10,808 tested so far .
I just realised that the fact that I turn off all my plugins ( and java ) and have multiple languages enabled , probably gives a completely unique fingerprint to automated stalkers like google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 10,808 tested so far.
I just realised that the fact that I turn off all my plugins(and java) and have multiple languages enabled, probably gives a completely unique fingerprint to automated stalkers like google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks EFF. I never thought about that.</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1264618200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 3,396 tested so far.</p><p>Fuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 3,396 tested so far.Fuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 3,396 tested so far.Fuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921972</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just ran this test, and I was horrified to discover that <i>every</i> font I have installed on my system shows up!  I had no idea the browser (Firefox v. 3.5.7 with NoScript) leaks this kind of information.  I do graphic design work and I have a huge number of fonts on my system, some of them unusual.  I certainly don't want nor need to have them all available to my web browser, and I certainly don't want my web browser to be broadcasting this list to the world.  Does anyone know if I can configure Firefox to use only the "standard" fonts?  I really don't think it's anyone else's business which fonts I have installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just ran this test , and I was horrified to discover that every font I have installed on my system shows up !
I had no idea the browser ( Firefox v. 3.5.7 with NoScript ) leaks this kind of information .
I do graphic design work and I have a huge number of fonts on my system , some of them unusual .
I certainly do n't want nor need to have them all available to my web browser , and I certainly do n't want my web browser to be broadcasting this list to the world .
Does anyone know if I can configure Firefox to use only the " standard " fonts ?
I really do n't think it 's anyone else 's business which fonts I have installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just ran this test, and I was horrified to discover that every font I have installed on my system shows up!
I had no idea the browser (Firefox v. 3.5.7 with NoScript) leaks this kind of information.
I do graphic design work and I have a huge number of fonts on my system, some of them unusual.
I certainly don't want nor need to have them all available to my web browser, and I certainly don't want my web browser to be broadcasting this list to the world.
Does anyone know if I can configure Firefox to use only the "standard" fonts?
I really don't think it's anyone else's business which fonts I have installed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30933438</id>
	<title>With Tor</title>
	<author>Xabraxas</author>
	<datestamp>1264695240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without Tor I'm unique with my fonts and browser plugins.  With Tor I'm more generic in every category except screen resolution!  Tor randomizes screen resolution but the res it gave me was very weird, and hence unique.  I think reporting a generic screen res like 1024x768 would probably be more helpful than reporting weird resolutions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without Tor I 'm unique with my fonts and browser plugins .
With Tor I 'm more generic in every category except screen resolution !
Tor randomizes screen resolution but the res it gave me was very weird , and hence unique .
I think reporting a generic screen res like 1024x768 would probably be more helpful than reporting weird resolutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without Tor I'm unique with my fonts and browser plugins.
With Tor I'm more generic in every category except screen resolution!
Tor randomizes screen resolution but the res it gave me was very weird, and hence unique.
I think reporting a generic screen res like 1024x768 would probably be more helpful than reporting weird resolutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920320</id>
	<title>Plugin to thwart this?</title>
	<author>cormander</author>
	<datestamp>1264619280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Write a browser plug-in that randomly mangles these bits of information into to other valid values before passing them to the website, in known "good" combination. You'll start to look like other random people on each request.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Write a browser plug-in that randomly mangles these bits of information into to other valid values before passing them to the website , in known " good " combination .
You 'll start to look like other random people on each request .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Write a browser plug-in that randomly mangles these bits of information into to other valid values before passing them to the website, in known "good" combination.
You'll start to look like other random people on each request.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922316</id>
	<title>Re:Suggestion for more generic User Agent String</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im in ur DB eating ur statistics</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im in ur DB eating ur statistics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im in ur DB eating ur statistics</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931302</id>
	<title>Re:Lynx apparently more popular than I thought</title>
	<author>timq</author>
	<datestamp>1264677420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>bits of identifying information : 11.09+<br>one in x browsers have this value : 2183</p></div></blockquote><p>log (2183) / log (2) = 11.092096414990792</p><p>It's just a mathematical expression that does not heed the semantic value of the UA string.  In other words, they treat "lynx" as being as common as "MSIE".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>bits of identifying information : 11.09 + one in x browsers have this value : 2183log ( 2183 ) / log ( 2 ) = 11.092096414990792It 's just a mathematical expression that does not heed the semantic value of the UA string .
In other words , they treat " lynx " as being as common as " MSIE " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bits of identifying information : 11.09+one in x browsers have this value : 2183log (2183) / log (2) = 11.092096414990792It's just a mathematical expression that does not heed the semantic value of the UA string.
In other words, they treat "lynx" as being as common as "MSIE".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931694</id>
	<title>I'm unique.</title>
	<author>mr\_mischief</author>
	<datestamp>1264682460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of the first 76,633 users, I'm the only person with my plugin selection and my available fonts.</p><p>Using Midori for the browser and Mandriva for the OS was a good start, obviously. The User-Agent string doesn't mention the distro name, though. It just says it's under X on Linux on an i686. One in every 25544.33 people (so two others) submitted to the test with Midori on Linux.</p><p>Having commercially-licensed fonts that don't come bundled with any OS helps, and how many people have identical sets of plugins?</p><p>When I'm really so worried about privacy, I'll be sure to use a browser that reports exactly what a stock XP or Win7 system would report. There's nothing in the world that forces your browser to tell the whole truth about what it can do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of the first 76,633 users , I 'm the only person with my plugin selection and my available fonts.Using Midori for the browser and Mandriva for the OS was a good start , obviously .
The User-Agent string does n't mention the distro name , though .
It just says it 's under X on Linux on an i686 .
One in every 25544.33 people ( so two others ) submitted to the test with Midori on Linux.Having commercially-licensed fonts that do n't come bundled with any OS helps , and how many people have identical sets of plugins ? When I 'm really so worried about privacy , I 'll be sure to use a browser that reports exactly what a stock XP or Win7 system would report .
There 's nothing in the world that forces your browser to tell the whole truth about what it can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of the first 76,633 users, I'm the only person with my plugin selection and my available fonts.Using Midori for the browser and Mandriva for the OS was a good start, obviously.
The User-Agent string doesn't mention the distro name, though.
It just says it's under X on Linux on an i686.
One in every 25544.33 people (so two others) submitted to the test with Midori on Linux.Having commercially-licensed fonts that don't come bundled with any OS helps, and how many people have identical sets of plugins?When I'm really so worried about privacy, I'll be sure to use a browser that reports exactly what a stock XP or Win7 system would report.
There's nothing in the world that forces your browser to tell the whole truth about what it can do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30928298</id>
	<title>I'm number 46,000 and one!!</title>
	<author>hellop2</author>
	<datestamp>1264601340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 46,001 tested so far.<br> <br>

Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 15.49 bits of identifying information.<br> <br>

My list of plugins and my list of fonts are both unique in 46001.  Interestingly, only 61 people ran the test in my timezone.  But, I'm curious about the "bits of identifying information".  Both fonts and plugins give 15.49 bits of info.  Wouldn't their results combined give more "bits"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 46,001 tested so far .
Currently , we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 15.49 bits of identifying information .
My list of plugins and my list of fonts are both unique in 46001 .
Interestingly , only 61 people ran the test in my timezone .
But , I 'm curious about the " bits of identifying information " .
Both fonts and plugins give 15.49 bits of info .
Would n't their results combined give more " bits " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 46,001 tested so far.
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 15.49 bits of identifying information.
My list of plugins and my list of fonts are both unique in 46001.
Interestingly, only 61 people ran the test in my timezone.
But, I'm curious about the "bits of identifying information".
Both fonts and plugins give 15.49 bits of info.
Wouldn't their results combined give more "bits"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922006</id>
	<title>CRASH!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Mozilla browser crashed after I hit the TEST button.  Any other crashers out there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Mozilla browser crashed after I hit the TEST button .
Any other crashers out there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Mozilla browser crashed after I hit the TEST button.
Any other crashers out there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920256</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks EFF. I never thought about that.</title>
	<author>FrankSchwab</author>
	<datestamp>1264619100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got:</p><p>"Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 6,335 tested so far."</p><p>So, in the last 15 minutes, they appear to have had roughly 1000 new visitors.</p><p>Sounds like they're collecting some new information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got : " Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 6,335 tested so far .
" So , in the last 15 minutes , they appear to have had roughly 1000 new visitors.Sounds like they 're collecting some new information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got:"Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 6,335 tested so far.
"So, in the last 15 minutes, they appear to have had roughly 1000 new visitors.Sounds like they're collecting some new information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30925426</id>
	<title>Re:Compiling Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264589280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you saying that gentoo's user-base is on the decline? Gentoo is not dying dammit. Thousands of gentoo users are emerging firefox as we speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying that gentoo 's user-base is on the decline ?
Gentoo is not dying dammit .
Thousands of gentoo users are emerging firefox as we speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying that gentoo's user-base is on the decline?
Gentoo is not dying dammit.
Thousands of gentoo users are emerging firefox as we speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30923690</id>
	<title>browserrecon project</title>
	<author>Marc Ruef</author>
	<datestamp>1264584180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello,</p><p>I would like to refer to an old project of mine. browserrecon is an implementation which uses application fingerprint techniques to identify web clients:</p><p><a href="http://www.computec.ch/projekte/browserrecon/" title="computec.ch" rel="nofollow">http://www.computec.ch/projekte/browserrecon/</a> [computec.ch]</p><p>Bye, Marc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello,I would like to refer to an old project of mine .
browserrecon is an implementation which uses application fingerprint techniques to identify web clients : http : //www.computec.ch/projekte/browserrecon/ [ computec.ch ] Bye , Marc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello,I would like to refer to an old project of mine.
browserrecon is an implementation which uses application fingerprint techniques to identify web clients:http://www.computec.ch/projekte/browserrecon/ [computec.ch]Bye, Marc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922104</id>
	<title>Compiling Firefox</title>
	<author>J'raxis</author>
	<datestamp>1264623660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed this years ago, when I noticed that compiling Firefox puts the exact date and time in your user-agent. The user-agent also contains the usual things like the OS, architecture, &amp;c.. So how likely is it that someone else with the exact same system configuration and compiled the exact same version of Firefox at the same time? Probably zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed this years ago , when I noticed that compiling Firefox puts the exact date and time in your user-agent .
The user-agent also contains the usual things like the OS , architecture , &amp;c.. So how likely is it that someone else with the exact same system configuration and compiled the exact same version of Firefox at the same time ?
Probably zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed this years ago, when I noticed that compiling Firefox puts the exact date and time in your user-agent.
The user-agent also contains the usual things like the OS, architecture, &amp;c.. So how likely is it that someone else with the exact same system configuration and compiled the exact same version of Firefox at the same time?
Probably zero.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924780</id>
	<title>Re:Lynx apparently more popular than I thought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plain old links will report your terminal size in the user-agent string, either randomizing your data (If you run in different-sized xterms) or making you unique to your screen setup (if you're at a framebuffer).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plain old links will report your terminal size in the user-agent string , either randomizing your data ( If you run in different-sized xterms ) or making you unique to your screen setup ( if you 're at a framebuffer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plain old links will report your terminal size in the user-agent string, either randomizing your data (If you run in different-sized xterms) or making you unique to your screen setup (if you're at a framebuffer).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30933000</id>
	<title>Very Ccounter-intuitive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264693200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting as an AC because I was always too paranoid to create an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. account -- how's that for irony!</p><p>Anyway, there are two configuration I use commonly at home: the text-based w3m, and Firefox.</p><p>At first thought one would think that w3m--a little-used browser--would be much more unique. After all, how many people use it, as compared to firefox?</p><p>But on reflection, this is actually <em>not</em> the case. Sure, w3m isn't very widely used, but without javascript support there is little of its customization that can be remotely quereied (beyond \_ACCEPT and USER\_AGENT and the like). So I decided to test both and see if in fact the more rare browser was also more anonymous. And it was:</p><p>W3M: "Within our dataset of about ten thousand visitors, only one in 46,065 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.<br>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 15.49 bits of identifying information."</p><p>Firefox: "Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 92,923 tested so far.<br>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 16.5 bits of identifying information."</p><p>Of course, now I've just given away who I am!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting as an AC because I was always too paranoid to create an / .
account -- how 's that for irony ! Anyway , there are two configuration I use commonly at home : the text-based w3m , and Firefox.At first thought one would think that w3m--a little-used browser--would be much more unique .
After all , how many people use it , as compared to firefox ? But on reflection , this is actually not the case .
Sure , w3m is n't very widely used , but without javascript support there is little of its customization that can be remotely quereied ( beyond \ _ACCEPT and USER \ _AGENT and the like ) .
So I decided to test both and see if in fact the more rare browser was also more anonymous .
And it was : W3M : " Within our dataset of about ten thousand visitors , only one in 46,065 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.Currently , we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 15.49 bits of identifying information .
" Firefox : " Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 92,923 tested so far.Currently , we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 16.5 bits of identifying information .
" Of course , now I 've just given away who I am !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting as an AC because I was always too paranoid to create an /.
account -- how's that for irony!Anyway, there are two configuration I use commonly at home: the text-based w3m, and Firefox.At first thought one would think that w3m--a little-used browser--would be much more unique.
After all, how many people use it, as compared to firefox?But on reflection, this is actually not the case.
Sure, w3m isn't very widely used, but without javascript support there is little of its customization that can be remotely quereied (beyond \_ACCEPT and USER\_AGENT and the like).
So I decided to test both and see if in fact the more rare browser was also more anonymous.
And it was:W3M: "Within our dataset of about ten thousand visitors, only one in 46,065 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys 15.49 bits of identifying information.
"Firefox: "Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 92,923 tested so far.Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 16.5 bits of identifying information.
"Of course, now I've just given away who I am!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931100</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264674720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did you configure NoScript? I have FF 3.5.7 with NoScript and the site tells me that it cannot determine my fonts because I have JavaScript disabled... Do you allow by default JavaScript or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did you configure NoScript ?
I have FF 3.5.7 with NoScript and the site tells me that it can not determine my fonts because I have JavaScript disabled... Do you allow by default JavaScript or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did you configure NoScript?
I have FF 3.5.7 with NoScript and the site tells me that it cannot determine my fonts because I have JavaScript disabled... Do you allow by default JavaScript or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922068</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another thing people usually forget about when clearing cookies is that Flash has cookies too and they don't clear along. When have you last time cleared them? Probably never. You can use BleachBit" [sourceforge.net] to clear those along with other software, history and temp data.</p></div><p>Better yet, use the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">BetterPrivacy</a> [mozilla.org] Firefox add-on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another thing people usually forget about when clearing cookies is that Flash has cookies too and they do n't clear along .
When have you last time cleared them ?
Probably never .
You can use BleachBit " [ sourceforge.net ] to clear those along with other software , history and temp data.Better yet , use the BetterPrivacy [ mozilla.org ] Firefox add-on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another thing people usually forget about when clearing cookies is that Flash has cookies too and they don't clear along.
When have you last time cleared them?
Probably never.
You can use BleachBit" [sourceforge.net] to clear those along with other software, history and temp data.Better yet, use the BetterPrivacy [mozilla.org] Firefox add-on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920978</id>
	<title>Re:Dell Default Image</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1264621200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s what I figured, on my PC at work, but I was wrong. (When I get home, I&rsquo;ll have to try it there.)</p><p>My fonts &ndash; <em>the default ones installed on the PC</em> &ndash; are shared by only 1 in about 3,200 visitors.</p><p>The IE user agent string, with its<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET information, said that only 1 in 4,200 browsers shares it.</p><p>Using the version of IE installed on the PC (version 7), my particular combination of Java, Flash, and WindowsMediaplayer was unique (amongst about 13,000 visitors so far).</p><p>Using Firefox, on the other hand, I share my user agent string with a whopping 4.2\% of the visitors (about 1 in 25), although my browser plugins are still unique...</p><p>In fact, even my screen resolution (1600x900x32) is only shared by about 1 in 400 visitors. (Surprising, slightly, since the trend has been more and more toward using 16:9 displays.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s what I figured , on my PC at work , but I was wrong .
( When I get home , I    ll have to try it there .
) My fonts    the default ones installed on the PC    are shared by only 1 in about 3,200 visitors.The IE user agent string , with its .NET information , said that only 1 in 4,200 browsers shares it.Using the version of IE installed on the PC ( version 7 ) , my particular combination of Java , Flash , and WindowsMediaplayer was unique ( amongst about 13,000 visitors so far ) .Using Firefox , on the other hand , I share my user agent string with a whopping 4.2 \ % of the visitors ( about 1 in 25 ) , although my browser plugins are still unique...In fact , even my screen resolution ( 1600x900x32 ) is only shared by about 1 in 400 visitors .
( Surprising , slightly , since the trend has been more and more toward using 16 : 9 displays .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s what I figured, on my PC at work, but I was wrong.
(When I get home, I’ll have to try it there.
)My fonts – the default ones installed on the PC – are shared by only 1 in about 3,200 visitors.The IE user agent string, with its .NET information, said that only 1 in 4,200 browsers shares it.Using the version of IE installed on the PC (version 7), my particular combination of Java, Flash, and WindowsMediaplayer was unique (amongst about 13,000 visitors so far).Using Firefox, on the other hand, I share my user agent string with a whopping 4.2\% of the visitors (about 1 in 25), although my browser plugins are still unique...In fact, even my screen resolution (1600x900x32) is only shared by about 1 in 400 visitors.
(Surprising, slightly, since the trend has been more and more toward using 16:9 displays.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920750</id>
	<title>Fresh Install</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264620540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fresh install of Firefox for windows from getfirefox.com rendered me unique out of 9608.  A fresh install in wine, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fresh install of Firefox for windows from getfirefox.com rendered me unique out of 9608 .
A fresh install in wine , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fresh install of Firefox for windows from getfirefox.com rendered me unique out of 9608.
A fresh install in wine, that is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931054</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>pjt33</author>
	<datestamp>1264674360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They launched a Java applet, which is perfectly capable of getting those details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They launched a Java applet , which is perfectly capable of getting those details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They launched a Java applet, which is perfectly capable of getting those details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922234</id>
	<title>Re:NoScript</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1264623960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am curious what their skew is on NoScript and FireFox use- I would assume both will be more common in their data than in the general population. I don't expect it to make a notable difference in the practical meaning of the numbers- I'm just curious from a statistics perspective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am curious what their skew is on NoScript and FireFox use- I would assume both will be more common in their data than in the general population .
I do n't expect it to make a notable difference in the practical meaning of the numbers- I 'm just curious from a statistics perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am curious what their skew is on NoScript and FireFox use- I would assume both will be more common in their data than in the general population.
I don't expect it to make a notable difference in the practical meaning of the numbers- I'm just curious from a statistics perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</id>
	<title>Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1264616580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I compared between IE, Firefox, Chrome and Opera. Both IE and Firefox were completely unique even with the user agent because of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET versions there. Opera and Chrome were quite genetic.</p><p>Plugins were also completely unique and really easy to detect in any other browser than IE8. Interestingly IE's plugin list was really small and not at all so unique. IE's top "warning" bar asked me if I want to run specific plugins (probably to detect them). System fonts were completely unique and looks like easy to detect.</p><p>Remember that this is info that for example Google gets all over the internet via Analytics - they don't even need those tracking cookies because your browser leaves so much unique data behind it that it doesn't matter. And so does every website owner.</p><p>Another thing people usually forget about when clearing cookies is that Flash has cookies too and they don't clear along. When have you last time cleared them? Probably never. You can use <a href="http://bleachbit.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">BleachBit"</a> [sourceforge.net] to clear those along with other software, history and temp data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I compared between IE , Firefox , Chrome and Opera .
Both IE and Firefox were completely unique even with the user agent because of the .NET versions there .
Opera and Chrome were quite genetic.Plugins were also completely unique and really easy to detect in any other browser than IE8 .
Interestingly IE 's plugin list was really small and not at all so unique .
IE 's top " warning " bar asked me if I want to run specific plugins ( probably to detect them ) .
System fonts were completely unique and looks like easy to detect.Remember that this is info that for example Google gets all over the internet via Analytics - they do n't even need those tracking cookies because your browser leaves so much unique data behind it that it does n't matter .
And so does every website owner.Another thing people usually forget about when clearing cookies is that Flash has cookies too and they do n't clear along .
When have you last time cleared them ?
Probably never .
You can use BleachBit " [ sourceforge.net ] to clear those along with other software , history and temp data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I compared between IE, Firefox, Chrome and Opera.
Both IE and Firefox were completely unique even with the user agent because of the .NET versions there.
Opera and Chrome were quite genetic.Plugins were also completely unique and really easy to detect in any other browser than IE8.
Interestingly IE's plugin list was really small and not at all so unique.
IE's top "warning" bar asked me if I want to run specific plugins (probably to detect them).
System fonts were completely unique and looks like easy to detect.Remember that this is info that for example Google gets all over the internet via Analytics - they don't even need those tracking cookies because your browser leaves so much unique data behind it that it doesn't matter.
And so does every website owner.Another thing people usually forget about when clearing cookies is that Flash has cookies too and they don't clear along.
When have you last time cleared them?
Probably never.
You can use BleachBit" [sourceforge.net] to clear those along with other software, history and temp data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919748</id>
	<title>The site is down already? Thanks, MySQL.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Warning: mysql\_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Can't connect to MySQL server on 'db' (4) in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 3</i></p><p><i>Warning: mysql\_select\_db() [function.mysql-select-db]: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (2) in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4</i></p><p><i>Warning: mysql\_select\_db() [function.mysql-select-db]: A link to the server could not be established in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4<br></i></p><p>Well, I suppose that's what you get for using a shitty database like MySQL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warning : mysql \ _connect ( ) [ function.mysql-connect ] : Ca n't connect to MySQL server on 'db ' ( 4 ) in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 3Warning : mysql \ _select \ _db ( ) [ function.mysql-select-db ] : Ca n't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock ' ( 2 ) in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4Warning : mysql \ _select \ _db ( ) [ function.mysql-select-db ] : A link to the server could not be established in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4Well , I suppose that 's what you get for using a shitty database like MySQL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warning: mysql\_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Can't connect to MySQL server on 'db' (4) in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 3Warning: mysql\_select\_db() [function.mysql-select-db]: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (2) in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4Warning: mysql\_select\_db() [function.mysql-select-db]: A link to the server could not be established in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/config/db.inc.php on line 4Well, I suppose that's what you get for using a shitty database like MySQL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919820</id>
	<title>Division by zero</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264617240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;"Warning: mysql\_query() [function.mysql-query]: A link to the server could not be established in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 163</p><p>Warning: mysql\_fetch\_assoc(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 163</p><p>Warning: Division by zero in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 173</p><p>Within our dataset of visitors, one in 0 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.</p><p>Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys INF bits of identifying information."</p><p>Now that's an unique fingerprint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " Warning : mysql \ _query ( ) [ function.mysql-query ] : A link to the server could not be established in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 163Warning : mysql \ _fetch \ _assoc ( ) : supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 163Warning : Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 173Within our dataset of visitors , one in 0 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.Currently , we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys INF bits of identifying information .
" Now that 's an unique fingerprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;"Warning: mysql\_query() [function.mysql-query]: A link to the server could not be established in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 163Warning: mysql\_fetch\_assoc(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 163Warning: Division by zero in /www/panopticlick.eff.org/docs/common.inc.php on line 173Within our dataset of visitors, one in 0 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys INF bits of identifying information.
"Now that's an unique fingerprint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920220</id>
	<title>Interestingly enough,</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1264618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>roughly one in five browsers has javascript disabled.
</p><p>Then again, that's probably artificially high based on what circles this story has been circulating in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>roughly one in five browsers has javascript disabled .
Then again , that 's probably artificially high based on what circles this story has been circulating in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>roughly one in five browsers has javascript disabled.
Then again, that's probably artificially high based on what circles this story has been circulating in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922832</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks EFF. I never thought about that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264625280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sytem fonts, 1 in 20251.<br>Browser plugin details, 1 in 10125.</p><p>Everything else? All below 1 in 50, which is a pittance and doesn't tell much given the volume web traffic data. So it seems those two things are my most unique aspects of my browser's retrievable non-cookie data. Thus those fonts and plugins are the two that are worth seeking or hiding in regards to unique identifiers.</p><p>Still the database is building up, I guess I'll have to check back in a month or two to see if they remain sticking out like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sytem fonts , 1 in 20251.Browser plugin details , 1 in 10125.Everything else ?
All below 1 in 50 , which is a pittance and does n't tell much given the volume web traffic data .
So it seems those two things are my most unique aspects of my browser 's retrievable non-cookie data .
Thus those fonts and plugins are the two that are worth seeking or hiding in regards to unique identifiers.Still the database is building up , I guess I 'll have to check back in a month or two to see if they remain sticking out like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sytem fonts, 1 in 20251.Browser plugin details, 1 in 10125.Everything else?
All below 1 in 50, which is a pittance and doesn't tell much given the volume web traffic data.
So it seems those two things are my most unique aspects of my browser's retrievable non-cookie data.
Thus those fonts and plugins are the two that are worth seeking or hiding in regards to unique identifiers.Still the database is building up, I guess I'll have to check back in a month or two to see if they remain sticking out like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922024</id>
	<title>Interesting...</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1264623480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With noscript enabled I came up as one out of around 1400, with noscript disabled I was completely unique out of the 19000 tests done so far. I'm special.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With noscript enabled I came up as one out of around 1400 , with noscript disabled I was completely unique out of the 19000 tests done so far .
I 'm special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With noscript enabled I came up as one out of around 1400, with noscript disabled I was completely unique out of the 19000 tests done so far.
I'm special.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919994</id>
	<title>Suggestion for more generic User Agent String</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1264618020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are all V</p><p>or</p><p>We are all Zero</p><p>Choice will of course depend on if you are a V for Vendetta or Code Geass fan. It will aso decide which mask you should wear when the revolution comes.</p><p>We could also use;</p><p>Ninjas (should Ninjas be blank?)</p><p>Pirates</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are all VorWe are all ZeroChoice will of course depend on if you are a V for Vendetta or Code Geass fan .
It will aso decide which mask you should wear when the revolution comes.We could also use ; Ninjas ( should Ninjas be blank ?
) Pirates</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are all VorWe are all ZeroChoice will of course depend on if you are a V for Vendetta or Code Geass fan.
It will aso decide which mask you should wear when the revolution comes.We could also use;Ninjas (should Ninjas be blank?
)Pirates</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919728</id>
	<title>Already being done</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264616880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.relevantview.com/relevantid.htm" title="relevantview.com"> in the market research industry</a> [relevantview.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>in the market research industry [ relevantview.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> in the market research industry [relevantview.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921016</id>
	<title>Snowflake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264621320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Panopticlick says I am a unique snowflake, but here on slashdot, I'm just an AC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Panopticlick says I am a unique snowflake , but here on slashdot , I 'm just an AC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Panopticlick says I am a unique snowflake, but here on slashdot, I'm just an AC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921492</id>
	<title>Worrying</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1264622400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What will happen when 'they' identify me and fail to correlate my purchase history with the ads I have been served?</p><p>"Oh jeez, another one who buys the same groceries every week, drives an old car and wears &pound;3 Asda clothes until they fall to pieces!"<br>"Another windows 2000 user?"<br>"Yeah!"<br>"Dammit, just stop serving him any pages at all and put him on the 'to kill' list."<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What will happen when 'they ' identify me and fail to correlate my purchase history with the ads I have been served ?
" Oh jeez , another one who buys the same groceries every week , drives an old car and wears   3 Asda clothes until they fall to pieces !
" " Another windows 2000 user ? " " Yeah !
" " Dammit , just stop serving him any pages at all and put him on the 'to kill ' list .
"  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will happen when 'they' identify me and fail to correlate my purchase history with the ads I have been served?
"Oh jeez, another one who buys the same groceries every week, drives an old car and wears £3 Asda clothes until they fall to pieces!
""Another windows 2000 user?""Yeah!
""Dammit, just stop serving him any pages at all and put him on the 'to kill' list.
"
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924116</id>
	<title>SAME results using Firefox vs Safari in private</title>
	<author>solosaint</author>
	<datestamp>1264585380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got the SAME results using Firefox vs Safari in private mode?  Look for yourself  <a href="http://phatanium.com/firefox-vs-safari.png" title="phatanium.com" rel="nofollow">http://phatanium.com/firefox-vs-safari.png</a> [phatanium.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got the SAME results using Firefox vs Safari in private mode ?
Look for yourself http : //phatanium.com/firefox-vs-safari.png [ phatanium.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got the SAME results using Firefox vs Safari in private mode?
Look for yourself  http://phatanium.com/firefox-vs-safari.png [phatanium.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919774</id>
	<title>Slashdotted already...</title>
	<author>ThatFunkyMunki</author>
	<datestamp>1264617120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd think that the EFF would know how to run a website that doesn't shit itself as soon as it hits slashdot...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think that the EFF would know how to run a website that does n't shit itself as soon as it hits slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think that the EFF would know how to run a website that doesn't shit itself as soon as it hits slashdot...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920150</id>
	<title>Re:Lynx apparently more popular than I thought</title>
	<author>Volante3192</author>
	<datestamp>1264618620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hrm...apparently I missed part of the page when I saw that.  It's likely that there were only 2183 browsers cataloged at the time.</p><p>Oops.  Mea culpa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hrm...apparently I missed part of the page when I saw that .
It 's likely that there were only 2183 browsers cataloged at the time.Oops .
Mea culpa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hrm...apparently I missed part of the page when I saw that.
It's likely that there were only 2183 browsers cataloged at the time.Oops.
Mea culpa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921432</id>
	<title>Good luck to them</title>
	<author>killmenow</author>
	<datestamp>1264622280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'M BEHIND SEVEN PROXIES!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'M BEHIND SEVEN PROXIES ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'M BEHIND SEVEN PROXIES!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30923666</id>
	<title>Re:Lynx apparently more popular than I thought</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1264584180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I browse with MS Word and the site says I'm unique. Who'd of thunk it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//no JS<br>http://panopticlick.eff.org/index.php?action=log<br><br>Seems to identify itself as IE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>I browse with MS Word and the site says I 'm unique .
Who 'd of thunk it ?
//no JShttp : //panopticlick.eff.org/index.php ? action = logSeems to identify itself as IE : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I browse with MS Word and the site says I'm unique.
Who'd of thunk it?
//no JShttp://panopticlick.eff.org/index.php?action=logSeems to identify itself as IE :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924056</id>
	<title>Re:Results and flash cookies</title>
	<author>thms</author>
	<datestamp>1264585200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another thing people usually forget about when clearing cookies is that <b>Flash has cookies</b> too and they don't clear along. When have you last time cleared them? Probably never. You can use <a href="http://bleachbit.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">BleachBit"</a> [sourceforge.net] to clear those along with other software, history and temp data.</p></div><p>Flash cookies are indeed something nasty, I was quite stumped when I found out about this.<br>
My solution was to delete related directories on every login now:<br>
<tt>rm -rf ~/.macromedia<br>
rm -rf ~/.adobe/Flash\_Player</tt> <br>
I fear with client side SQL dbs in HTML5 this will need a DROP TABLE<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....; statement as well. Or I'll do it the other way around by deleting my "polluted" browser config and copying a clean one over every time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another thing people usually forget about when clearing cookies is that Flash has cookies too and they do n't clear along .
When have you last time cleared them ?
Probably never .
You can use BleachBit " [ sourceforge.net ] to clear those along with other software , history and temp data.Flash cookies are indeed something nasty , I was quite stumped when I found out about this .
My solution was to delete related directories on every login now : rm -rf ~ /.macromedia rm -rf ~ /.adobe/Flash \ _Player I fear with client side SQL dbs in HTML5 this will need a DROP TABLE .... ; statement as well .
Or I 'll do it the other way around by deleting my " polluted " browser config and copying a clean one over every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another thing people usually forget about when clearing cookies is that Flash has cookies too and they don't clear along.
When have you last time cleared them?
Probably never.
You can use BleachBit" [sourceforge.net] to clear those along with other software, history and temp data.Flash cookies are indeed something nasty, I was quite stumped when I found out about this.
My solution was to delete related directories on every login now:
rm -rf ~/.macromedia
rm -rf ~/.adobe/Flash\_Player 
I fear with client side SQL dbs in HTML5 this will need a DROP TABLE ....; statement as well.
Or I'll do it the other way around by deleting my "polluted" browser config and copying a clean one over every time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30936774</id>
	<title>Re:Lynx apparently more popular than I thought</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1264704900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My elinks instalation is unique. What is no surpize, since my Firefox is unique too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My elinks instalation is unique .
What is no surpize , since my Firefox is unique too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My elinks instalation is unique.
What is no surpize, since my Firefox is unique too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30925820</id>
	<title>It's the FONTS...</title>
	<author>trygstad</author>
	<datestamp>1264590420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you do any graphic design work at all, odds are extremely strong that you will have a very distinctive set of fonts installed. My Firefox installation was a 1-of due to not only fonts but the particular mix of add-ons I am sporting.

Interestingly enough my Chrome was unique for plug-ins--and not fonts, and IE was unique for (surprise!) the USER AGENT details.

Go figure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do any graphic design work at all , odds are extremely strong that you will have a very distinctive set of fonts installed .
My Firefox installation was a 1-of due to not only fonts but the particular mix of add-ons I am sporting .
Interestingly enough my Chrome was unique for plug-ins--and not fonts , and IE was unique for ( surprise !
) the USER AGENT details .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you do any graphic design work at all, odds are extremely strong that you will have a very distinctive set of fonts installed.
My Firefox installation was a 1-of due to not only fonts but the particular mix of add-ons I am sporting.
Interestingly enough my Chrome was unique for plug-ins--and not fonts, and IE was unique for (surprise!
) the USER AGENT details.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30930668</id>
	<title>Seems to be some programming errors on the test pg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264669500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried the test - getting a ton if PHP errors...   Seems the EFF needs a few more programmers...   where<br>is John Gilmore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried the test - getting a ton if PHP errors... Seems the EFF needs a few more programmers... whereis John Gilmore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried the test - getting a ton if PHP errors...   Seems the EFF needs a few more programmers...   whereis John Gilmore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921516</id>
	<title>Highest entropy?</title>
	<author>SloWave</author>
	<datestamp>1264622460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got my entropy up to 14+ by becoming a Mozilla/4.78 (Macintosh; U; PPC).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got my entropy up to 14 + by becoming a Mozilla/4.78 ( Macintosh ; U ; PPC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got my entropy up to 14+ by becoming a Mozilla/4.78 (Macintosh; U; PPC).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30923002</id>
	<title>The USER\_AGENT String can be Changed in Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264625760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can change the user\_agent string in Firefox in about:config.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can change the user \ _agent string in Firefox in about : config .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can change the user\_agent string in Firefox in about:config.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920206</id>
	<title>Unique Browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264618920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 5,465 tested so far.
<br>
Oh my browser is unique just like me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 5,465 tested so far .
Oh my browser is unique just like me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 5,465 tested so far.
Oh my browser is unique just like me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.31007402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30932838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30934300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30929874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30944214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30936774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30923666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30925426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30927206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_1638216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920256
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920822
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30926458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30934300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30925426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30929874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30932838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30927206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30944214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30928298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30919994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.31007402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30922316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30921972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_1638216.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30920150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30931302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30936774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30924780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_1638216.30923666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
