<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_31_0424240</id>
	<title>UK Gov't Says "No Evidence" IE Is Less Secure</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264935600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:aliNO@SPAMebrahim.org" rel="nofollow">aliebrah</a> writes <i>"Lord Avebury tabled a parliamentary question in the UK regarding the security of Internet Explorer and whether the UK government would reconsider its use. He <a href="http://blog.ebrahim.org/2010/01/28/uk-government-says-no-evidence-ie-is-less-secure/">got an answer from the UK Home Office</a> that's unlikely to please most Slashdot readers. The UK government <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100126w0003.htm#10012667000351">contends that 'there is no evidence</a> that moving from the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer to other browsers will make users more secure.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>aliebrah writes " Lord Avebury tabled a parliamentary question in the UK regarding the security of Internet Explorer and whether the UK government would reconsider its use .
He got an answer from the UK Home Office that 's unlikely to please most Slashdot readers .
The UK government contends that 'there is no evidence that moving from the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer to other browsers will make users more secure .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aliebrah writes "Lord Avebury tabled a parliamentary question in the UK regarding the security of Internet Explorer and whether the UK government would reconsider its use.
He got an answer from the UK Home Office that's unlikely to please most Slashdot readers.
The UK government contends that 'there is no evidence that moving from the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer to other browsers will make users more secure.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969444</id>
	<title>There IS no evidence!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264942020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The latest patched version of Internet Explorer fixed the bugs that Microsoft found. The latest patched version of other browsers fixed the bugs that other browser-manufacturers found. Ergo, there is no evidence that the latest patched version of Internet Explorer are less secure, since the officially "known" security features have been fixed.</p><p>In fact, there's no evidence that there are any bugs at all in the latest patched versions of any software ever written, unless the manufacturers have explicitly stated that there are. In which case, in order for policymakers to accept such a report, they would need to prove that this is the case, by lobbying the government to the effect that their software is inferior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The latest patched version of Internet Explorer fixed the bugs that Microsoft found .
The latest patched version of other browsers fixed the bugs that other browser-manufacturers found .
Ergo , there is no evidence that the latest patched version of Internet Explorer are less secure , since the officially " known " security features have been fixed.In fact , there 's no evidence that there are any bugs at all in the latest patched versions of any software ever written , unless the manufacturers have explicitly stated that there are .
In which case , in order for policymakers to accept such a report , they would need to prove that this is the case , by lobbying the government to the effect that their software is inferior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The latest patched version of Internet Explorer fixed the bugs that Microsoft found.
The latest patched version of other browsers fixed the bugs that other browser-manufacturers found.
Ergo, there is no evidence that the latest patched version of Internet Explorer are less secure, since the officially "known" security features have been fixed.In fact, there's no evidence that there are any bugs at all in the latest patched versions of any software ever written, unless the manufacturers have explicitly stated that there are.
In which case, in order for policymakers to accept such a report, they would need to prove that this is the case, by lobbying the government to the effect that their software is inferior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30981964</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>KlausBreuer</author>
	<datestamp>1265043060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a government saying this. A government. A bunch of bureaucrats with a complete loss of contact to the world.<br>Do you think them capable of tying their own shoelaces, let along find useful information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a government saying this .
A government .
A bunch of bureaucrats with a complete loss of contact to the world.Do you think them capable of tying their own shoelaces , let along find useful information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a government saying this.
A government.
A bunch of bureaucrats with a complete loss of contact to the world.Do you think them capable of tying their own shoelaces, let along find useful information?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970118</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264951140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whilst your other two points are very valid, are you sure about DEP?</p><p>Process Explorer shows Firefox, Opera and IE8 are all running with DEP on my XP SP3 machine in opt-in mode ("DEP Permanent" as Process Explorer lists describes it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whilst your other two points are very valid , are you sure about DEP ? Process Explorer shows Firefox , Opera and IE8 are all running with DEP on my XP SP3 machine in opt-in mode ( " DEP Permanent " as Process Explorer lists describes it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whilst your other two points are very valid, are you sure about DEP?Process Explorer shows Firefox, Opera and IE8 are all running with DEP on my XP SP3 machine in opt-in mode ("DEP Permanent" as Process Explorer lists describes it)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969620</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>sparky81</author>
	<datestamp>1264944420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext> "The reason for this statement by the UK government is very simple - it has intranet and business systems in virtually every government department which work only with IE. They frequently ridiculously old versions at that - IE6 take a bow - giving the lie to the "latest, fully patched" comment anyway.

There is no way that the UK government is going to incur the conversion costs for these systems at this moment given the state of its books at the moment.  Stating that IE was insecure would create an inexorable pressure to do exactly that.

This statement has nothing to with security, and everything to do with internal government politics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The reason for this statement by the UK government is very simple - it has intranet and business systems in virtually every government department which work only with IE .
They frequently ridiculously old versions at that - IE6 take a bow - giving the lie to the " latest , fully patched " comment anyway .
There is no way that the UK government is going to incur the conversion costs for these systems at this moment given the state of its books at the moment .
Stating that IE was insecure would create an inexorable pressure to do exactly that .
This statement has nothing to with security , and everything to do with internal government politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "The reason for this statement by the UK government is very simple - it has intranet and business systems in virtually every government department which work only with IE.
They frequently ridiculously old versions at that - IE6 take a bow - giving the lie to the "latest, fully patched" comment anyway.
There is no way that the UK government is going to incur the conversion costs for these systems at this moment given the state of its books at the moment.
Stating that IE was insecure would create an inexorable pressure to do exactly that.
This statement has nothing to with security, and everything to do with internal government politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30976146</id>
	<title>Re:"Not please" Slashdot readers?</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1264947420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know why it would "not please" Slashdot readers. I am very pleased. That is the funniest thing I've read all week.</p><p>Nothing like a good laugh to start your morning.</p></div><p>I am amused. But I am not pleased. There is a distinction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why it would " not please " Slashdot readers .
I am very pleased .
That is the funniest thing I 've read all week.Nothing like a good laugh to start your morning.I am amused .
But I am not pleased .
There is a distinction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why it would "not please" Slashdot readers.
I am very pleased.
That is the funniest thing I've read all week.Nothing like a good laugh to start your morning.I am amused.
But I am not pleased.
There is a distinction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969348</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>toQDuj</author>
	<datestamp>1264940880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still, the user would have to browse to a malicious site. Perhaps the users who "choose" IE (or not choose at all and end up with the default browser), are the type of users more likely to browse to particular types of sites. Changing them to choose another browser, therefore, would not prevent them from browsing to sites with malicious code. This malicious code can then still be executed if it's a vulnerability in a plug-in instead of the browser.</p><p>Now I think the browser should keep the plug-ins in check.. Sandboxing perhaps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , the user would have to browse to a malicious site .
Perhaps the users who " choose " IE ( or not choose at all and end up with the default browser ) , are the type of users more likely to browse to particular types of sites .
Changing them to choose another browser , therefore , would not prevent them from browsing to sites with malicious code .
This malicious code can then still be executed if it 's a vulnerability in a plug-in instead of the browser.Now I think the browser should keep the plug-ins in check.. Sandboxing perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, the user would have to browse to a malicious site.
Perhaps the users who "choose" IE (or not choose at all and end up with the default browser), are the type of users more likely to browse to particular types of sites.
Changing them to choose another browser, therefore, would not prevent them from browsing to sites with malicious code.
This malicious code can then still be executed if it's a vulnerability in a plug-in instead of the browser.Now I think the browser should keep the plug-ins in check.. Sandboxing perhaps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969592</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1264943940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, with its backwards monolithic architecture that has been so popular for almost two decades with Netscape and then Mozilla, it's now become almost unusable.  I have to restart it every half day or so because its memory footprint creeps up to 1.5GB on all my computers (Windows and OS X), from 230MB when restarted.  As soon as Chrome + Xmarks is available on my Mac, I'll be saying goodbye to FF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , with its backwards monolithic architecture that has been so popular for almost two decades with Netscape and then Mozilla , it 's now become almost unusable .
I have to restart it every half day or so because its memory footprint creeps up to 1.5GB on all my computers ( Windows and OS X ) , from 230MB when restarted .
As soon as Chrome + Xmarks is available on my Mac , I 'll be saying goodbye to FF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, with its backwards monolithic architecture that has been so popular for almost two decades with Netscape and then Mozilla, it's now become almost unusable.
I have to restart it every half day or so because its memory footprint creeps up to 1.5GB on all my computers (Windows and OS X), from 230MB when restarted.
As soon as Chrome + Xmarks is available on my Mac, I'll be saying goodbye to FF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970622</id>
	<title>a tautology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a logical truth -- there is no evidence that the latest patched IE is less safe than any other browser.  By definition the latest patched IE should have all known security bugs (excluding the user) patched.</p><p>There's no \_evidence\_ that a single extra security problem exists in IE today.  However, we all know the next one is just around the corner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a logical truth -- there is no evidence that the latest patched IE is less safe than any other browser .
By definition the latest patched IE should have all known security bugs ( excluding the user ) patched.There 's no \ _evidence \ _ that a single extra security problem exists in IE today .
However , we all know the next one is just around the corner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a logical truth -- there is no evidence that the latest patched IE is less safe than any other browser.
By definition the latest patched IE should have all known security bugs (excluding the user) patched.There's no \_evidence\_ that a single extra security problem exists in IE today.
However, we all know the next one is just around the corner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969446</id>
	<title>Sure whatever they say.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264942080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>and shit tastes good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and shit tastes good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and shit tastes good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971316</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1264961460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>there is ample evidence that flaws existed in MS IE for months, and sometimes years, and Microsoft knew about them and did not fix. That in itself throws out the idea that anyone outside of Microsoft has any clue as to how many flaws there have been or are. Hiding flaws does not mean they do not exist.<br><br>On another note, there should be plenty of evidence of flaws and exploits which were in IE but not in Firefox, Opera, or even Safari. Things where IE has intimate knowledge with stuff like ActiveX, COM, their JavaScript engine, and all the other tentacles going from IE into the Windows OS.<br><br>Therefore the comment that there is "no evidence" sounds too much like it came from Microsoft because it is really a question asking for technical proof and you are not going to get that in a parliamentary discussion. And notice he didn't say he's asking for proof, he stated there is "no evidence" so he seems to think he's some kind of expert in this area.<br><br>Proof of even one flaw due directly to unique ties between IE and the Windows OS is proof that it is less secure because the others do not have those ties. Counting security updates is invalidated by the facts that Microsoft withholds flaws and public information on flaws. So either Microsoft must open source IE to prove the flaw count issue or it must be declared less secure. IMO<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is ample evidence that flaws existed in MS IE for months , and sometimes years , and Microsoft knew about them and did not fix .
That in itself throws out the idea that anyone outside of Microsoft has any clue as to how many flaws there have been or are .
Hiding flaws does not mean they do not exist.On another note , there should be plenty of evidence of flaws and exploits which were in IE but not in Firefox , Opera , or even Safari .
Things where IE has intimate knowledge with stuff like ActiveX , COM , their JavaScript engine , and all the other tentacles going from IE into the Windows OS.Therefore the comment that there is " no evidence " sounds too much like it came from Microsoft because it is really a question asking for technical proof and you are not going to get that in a parliamentary discussion .
And notice he did n't say he 's asking for proof , he stated there is " no evidence " so he seems to think he 's some kind of expert in this area.Proof of even one flaw due directly to unique ties between IE and the Windows OS is proof that it is less secure because the others do not have those ties .
Counting security updates is invalidated by the facts that Microsoft withholds flaws and public information on flaws .
So either Microsoft must open source IE to prove the flaw count issue or it must be declared less secure .
IMOLoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is ample evidence that flaws existed in MS IE for months, and sometimes years, and Microsoft knew about them and did not fix.
That in itself throws out the idea that anyone outside of Microsoft has any clue as to how many flaws there have been or are.
Hiding flaws does not mean they do not exist.On another note, there should be plenty of evidence of flaws and exploits which were in IE but not in Firefox, Opera, or even Safari.
Things where IE has intimate knowledge with stuff like ActiveX, COM, their JavaScript engine, and all the other tentacles going from IE into the Windows OS.Therefore the comment that there is "no evidence" sounds too much like it came from Microsoft because it is really a question asking for technical proof and you are not going to get that in a parliamentary discussion.
And notice he didn't say he's asking for proof, he stated there is "no evidence" so he seems to think he's some kind of expert in this area.Proof of even one flaw due directly to unique ties between IE and the Windows OS is proof that it is less secure because the others do not have those ties.
Counting security updates is invalidated by the facts that Microsoft withholds flaws and public information on flaws.
So either Microsoft must open source IE to prove the flaw count issue or it must be declared less secure.
IMOLoB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>gigne</author>
	<datestamp>1264941420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, indeed you are correct.</p><p>UK: To place an item on the agenda for discussion.<br>US: To remove the item from consideration.</p><p>In the UK we shelve discussion items when they are removed from consideration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , indeed you are correct.UK : To place an item on the agenda for discussion.US : To remove the item from consideration.In the UK we shelve discussion items when they are removed from consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, indeed you are correct.UK: To place an item on the agenda for discussion.US: To remove the item from consideration.In the UK we shelve discussion items when they are removed from consideration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</id>
	<title>IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox. Why?<br>
&nbsp; - Low privileged mode. IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user, Firefox doesn't...<br>
&nbsp; - DEP is turned on for IE8 by default. Firefox has to be added (or the "all applications" option).<br>
&nbsp; - IE8 patches can be deployed from the Domain very easily. Firefox on a corporate network is a pain in the butt...</p><p>Now I entirely grant that this is Microsoft's browser running on Microsoft's OS and thus it gains unfair advantages but that doesn't change the facts or reality of the situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox .
Why ?   - Low privileged mode .
IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user , Firefox does n't.. .   - DEP is turned on for IE8 by default .
Firefox has to be added ( or the " all applications " option ) .
  - IE8 patches can be deployed from the Domain very easily .
Firefox on a corporate network is a pain in the butt...Now I entirely grant that this is Microsoft 's browser running on Microsoft 's OS and thus it gains unfair advantages but that does n't change the facts or reality of the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox.
Why?
  - Low privileged mode.
IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user, Firefox doesn't...
  - DEP is turned on for IE8 by default.
Firefox has to be added (or the "all applications" option).
  - IE8 patches can be deployed from the Domain very easily.
Firefox on a corporate network is a pain in the butt...Now I entirely grant that this is Microsoft's browser running on Microsoft's OS and thus it gains unfair advantages but that doesn't change the facts or reality of the situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30973362</id>
	<title>There's a easy explanation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264930740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think is a collateral effect due to the actual EU president which stupidity it's very contagious. It's the spanish 'Mr. Bean'... and his effects are spreading...<br>Haa,ha,ha,ha...</p><p>An spaniard (sick of politics) said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think is a collateral effect due to the actual EU president which stupidity it 's very contagious .
It 's the spanish 'Mr .
Bean'... and his effects are spreading...Haa,ha,ha,ha...An spaniard ( sick of politics ) said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think is a collateral effect due to the actual EU president which stupidity it's very contagious.
It's the spanish 'Mr.
Bean'... and his effects are spreading...Haa,ha,ha,ha...An spaniard (sick of politics) said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969372</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1264941060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Perhaps to Britons, putting things on a table is officially proposing them</i></p><p>Well I don't know for sure, but I'd always assumed that it was from "to bring something to the table", which is a fairly common expression here in the UK. (Think meeting room table, and bringing something with you for consideration (or perhaps even a dining table))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps to Britons , putting things on a table is officially proposing themWell I do n't know for sure , but I 'd always assumed that it was from " to bring something to the table " , which is a fairly common expression here in the UK .
( Think meeting room table , and bringing something with you for consideration ( or perhaps even a dining table ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps to Britons, putting things on a table is officially proposing themWell I don't know for sure, but I'd always assumed that it was from "to bring something to the table", which is a fairly common expression here in the UK.
(Think meeting room table, and bringing something with you for consideration (or perhaps even a dining table))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970888</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1264958280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a flight through Stansted airport some time - they are still using dot-matrix printers from the 1980's. You can tell because the printers have acquired a "sun-tan" - they seem to have aged in the same way that paper does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a flight through Stansted airport some time - they are still using dot-matrix printers from the 1980 's .
You can tell because the printers have acquired a " sun-tan " - they seem to have aged in the same way that paper does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a flight through Stansted airport some time - they are still using dot-matrix printers from the 1980's.
You can tell because the printers have acquired a "sun-tan" - they seem to have aged in the same way that paper does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969612</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1264944120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE doesn't have Noscript. That's a pretty big one in terms of security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE does n't have Noscript .
That 's a pretty big one in terms of security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE doesn't have Noscript.
That's a pretty big one in terms of security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969416</id>
	<title>Lack of evidence shouldn't be a problem</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264941720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They just need grow suspicious of IE harboring WMDs. Then the lack of evidence wouldn't be a problem at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They just need grow suspicious of IE harboring WMDs .
Then the lack of evidence would n't be a problem at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just need grow suspicious of IE harboring WMDs.
Then the lack of evidence wouldn't be a problem at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972842</id>
	<title>Petition to warn about IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For people living in the UK, someone has created petition on the Number 10 website:<br>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Firefox/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For people living in the UK , someone has created petition on the Number 10 website : http : //petitions.number10.gov.uk/Firefox/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For people living in the UK, someone has created petition on the Number 10 website:http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Firefox/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970176</id>
	<title>Of course it will make people more secure</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1264951620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a monoculture the attack surface is large since everyone is using the same code and therefore vulnerable to the same bugs. Just moving users onto a mix of other browsers lowers the attack surface even if each individual browser has its own fair share of bugs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a monoculture the attack surface is large since everyone is using the same code and therefore vulnerable to the same bugs .
Just moving users onto a mix of other browsers lowers the attack surface even if each individual browser has its own fair share of bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a monoculture the attack surface is large since everyone is using the same code and therefore vulnerable to the same bugs.
Just moving users onto a mix of other browsers lowers the attack surface even if each individual browser has its own fair share of bugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969856</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264947840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While your points are valid, they don't mean that IE is any safer because those feature merely offer a security backup should a hole be present, and only for a certain category of bugs. It doesn't mean that there's no holes and does not guarantee that any potential hole is covered.</p><p>If IE had an arbitrary "read arbitrary window content and cookies" javascript operation, neither would kick in.</p><p>Case in point, Aurora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While your points are valid , they do n't mean that IE is any safer because those feature merely offer a security backup should a hole be present , and only for a certain category of bugs .
It does n't mean that there 's no holes and does not guarantee that any potential hole is covered.If IE had an arbitrary " read arbitrary window content and cookies " javascript operation , neither would kick in.Case in point , Aurora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While your points are valid, they don't mean that IE is any safer because those feature merely offer a security backup should a hole be present, and only for a certain category of bugs.
It doesn't mean that there's no holes and does not guarantee that any potential hole is covered.If IE had an arbitrary "read arbitrary window content and cookies" javascript operation, neither would kick in.Case in point, Aurora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970480</id>
	<title>Eppur Si Muove</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264954560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need a Galileo to try to convince them of the evident, even if they want to believe/understand our proofs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a Galileo to try to convince them of the evident , even if they want to believe/understand our proofs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a Galileo to try to convince them of the evident, even if they want to believe/understand our proofs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969590</id>
	<title>Let's face it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264943940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's face it, the only fact that makes IE less secure vs Firefox et al, and Windows less secure than OS X et al., is the market share (which makes them bigger targets).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's face it , the only fact that makes IE less secure vs Firefox et al , and Windows less secure than OS X et al. , is the market share ( which makes them bigger targets ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's face it, the only fact that makes IE less secure vs Firefox et al, and Windows less secure than OS X et al., is the market share (which makes them bigger targets).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970756</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first black swane kills the assert that All swanes are white.</p><p>Expect crackers to prove them wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first black swane kills the assert that All swanes are white.Expect crackers to prove them wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first black swane kills the assert that All swanes are white.Expect crackers to prove them wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970592</id>
	<title>Well excuse me. but i trust germans over brits in</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1264955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>matters like these. with their paranoid attention to detail, psychopathic inclination to procedure, and ungodly patience with working on intricate technical details, any word from germans in that area would trample any word from britain at any point for me.</p><p>the fact that u.k. government has been shitting and screwing up in every other field for the last 10 years does not help either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>matters like these .
with their paranoid attention to detail , psychopathic inclination to procedure , and ungodly patience with working on intricate technical details , any word from germans in that area would trample any word from britain at any point for me.the fact that u.k. government has been shitting and screwing up in every other field for the last 10 years does not help either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>matters like these.
with their paranoid attention to detail, psychopathic inclination to procedure, and ungodly patience with working on intricate technical details, any word from germans in that area would trample any word from britain at any point for me.the fact that u.k. government has been shitting and screwing up in every other field for the last 10 years does not help either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971006</id>
	<title>Ah the insight</title>
	<author>horai</author>
	<datestamp>1264959180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this the very same government who said there were weapons of mass destruction.  It's a little like the blind leading the blind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the very same government who said there were weapons of mass destruction .
It 's a little like the blind leading the blind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the very same government who said there were weapons of mass destruction.
It's a little like the blind leading the blind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969780</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>auLucifer</author>
	<datestamp>1264946760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And most common firefox users wouldn't have it either. What's your point?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And most common firefox users would n't have it either .
What 's your point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And most common firefox users wouldn't have it either.
What's your point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970714</id>
	<title>This is the same home office ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that was sure there were WMDs in Iraq</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that was sure there were WMDs in Iraq</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that was sure there were WMDs in Iraq</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290</id>
	<title>in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1264940100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In UK governmental English, "to table" apparently means something like "to propose" or "to bring up for consideration", almost exactly the opposite of the U.S. meaning, which is "to withdraw from further consideration".</p><p>I guess there's some international disagreement over whether this mythical <i>table</i> is where you put things to be considered, or where you put things to die. Perhaps to Britons, putting things on a table is officially proposing them, whereas to Americans, if it's on the table it's inert, and if you want it proposed, you had better have it in your hand waving it in someone's face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In UK governmental English , " to table " apparently means something like " to propose " or " to bring up for consideration " , almost exactly the opposite of the U.S. meaning , which is " to withdraw from further consideration " .I guess there 's some international disagreement over whether this mythical table is where you put things to be considered , or where you put things to die .
Perhaps to Britons , putting things on a table is officially proposing them , whereas to Americans , if it 's on the table it 's inert , and if you want it proposed , you had better have it in your hand waving it in someone 's face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In UK governmental English, "to table" apparently means something like "to propose" or "to bring up for consideration", almost exactly the opposite of the U.S. meaning, which is "to withdraw from further consideration".I guess there's some international disagreement over whether this mythical table is where you put things to be considered, or where you put things to die.
Perhaps to Britons, putting things on a table is officially proposing them, whereas to Americans, if it's on the table it's inert, and if you want it proposed, you had better have it in your hand waving it in someone's face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971520</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1264962960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox (and Chrome) can autoupdate themselves. Chrome also runs in a low privileged mode, at least on Linux. According to other posters, DEP isn't unique to IE.</p><p>Now that that's out of the way, does IE do the same multiprocess trick Chrome does? (I think so.) And especially, how quickly are IE bugs patched versus other browsers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox ( and Chrome ) can autoupdate themselves .
Chrome also runs in a low privileged mode , at least on Linux .
According to other posters , DEP is n't unique to IE.Now that that 's out of the way , does IE do the same multiprocess trick Chrome does ?
( I think so .
) And especially , how quickly are IE bugs patched versus other browsers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox (and Chrome) can autoupdate themselves.
Chrome also runs in a low privileged mode, at least on Linux.
According to other posters, DEP isn't unique to IE.Now that that's out of the way, does IE do the same multiprocess trick Chrome does?
(I think so.
) And especially, how quickly are IE bugs patched versus other browsers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969788</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264947000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Noscript is big in terms of security, but its an inconvenience, and breaks compatibility with many sites. It isn't something that I'd personally recommend to most of the population, and especially not to those who grew up without computers (such as politicians). I personally only use adblock.</p><p>Regardless, I don't believe that unofficial addons which aren't included with the browsers (or not even recommended on first run) should be included in such a study anyway. Because in real world usage, the settings out of the box have been shown to matter the most (since ordinary humans don't change them). That's why Microsoft highly recommended in Windows XP Sp2 that the firewall was enabled and warned users by default!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Noscript is big in terms of security , but its an inconvenience , and breaks compatibility with many sites .
It is n't something that I 'd personally recommend to most of the population , and especially not to those who grew up without computers ( such as politicians ) .
I personally only use adblock.Regardless , I do n't believe that unofficial addons which are n't included with the browsers ( or not even recommended on first run ) should be included in such a study anyway .
Because in real world usage , the settings out of the box have been shown to matter the most ( since ordinary humans do n't change them ) .
That 's why Microsoft highly recommended in Windows XP Sp2 that the firewall was enabled and warned users by default !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noscript is big in terms of security, but its an inconvenience, and breaks compatibility with many sites.
It isn't something that I'd personally recommend to most of the population, and especially not to those who grew up without computers (such as politicians).
I personally only use adblock.Regardless, I don't believe that unofficial addons which aren't included with the browsers (or not even recommended on first run) should be included in such a study anyway.
Because in real world usage, the settings out of the box have been shown to matter the most (since ordinary humans don't change them).
That's why Microsoft highly recommended in Windows XP Sp2 that the firewall was enabled and warned users by default!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969828</id>
	<title>follow up questions?  follow the $$</title>
	<author>KwKSilver</author>
	<datestamp>1264947480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Follow the money....  who gets what from who?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Follow the money.... who gets what from who ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Follow the money....  who gets what from who?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970362</id>
	<title>Microsoft says "No Evidence" UK Gov't Received Pay</title>
	<author>smd75</author>
	<datestamp>1264953540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news tonight, Microsoft says there is no evidence that the UK received any payment in the claim that the UK Gov't says there is no evidence showing IE is less secure.</p><p>It might be true, it might not. But why do we need to governments to tell us what is secure and isn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news tonight , Microsoft says there is no evidence that the UK received any payment in the claim that the UK Gov't says there is no evidence showing IE is less secure.It might be true , it might not .
But why do we need to governments to tell us what is secure and is n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news tonight, Microsoft says there is no evidence that the UK received any payment in the claim that the UK Gov't says there is no evidence showing IE is less secure.It might be true, it might not.
But why do we need to governments to tell us what is secure and isn't?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969608</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE8 is completely useless until you start disabling some of this "security". You can't download anything. Pages don't render properly. It's crap.</p><p>Firefox can easily be updated over a corporate network. Very easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE8 is completely useless until you start disabling some of this " security " .
You ca n't download anything .
Pages do n't render properly .
It 's crap.Firefox can easily be updated over a corporate network .
Very easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE8 is completely useless until you start disabling some of this "security".
You can't download anything.
Pages don't render properly.
It's crap.Firefox can easily be updated over a corporate network.
Very easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969804</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>msclrhd</author>
	<datestamp>1264947300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What version of Firefox are you using?<br>What version of Mac are you running on?<br>What version of Windows are you running on?<br>What plugins are you using?<br>What websites are you visiting where you notice high footprint?<br>Are you visiting a lot of Flash-based websites (e.g. youtube)?<br>Are you constantly using javascript/ajax intensive websites (e.g. gmail or google docs)?<br>Are you visiting a lot of Silverlight-based websites?<br>Are you reading a lot of PDFs from the browser?</p><p>And please, file a bug with Firefox with a subject line along the lines of "Firefox consuming 1.5GB on Windows and Mac" so that the Firefox team can help track down and resolve the problem. Please include as much information as you can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What version of Firefox are you using ? What version of Mac are you running on ? What version of Windows are you running on ? What plugins are you using ? What websites are you visiting where you notice high footprint ? Are you visiting a lot of Flash-based websites ( e.g .
youtube ) ? Are you constantly using javascript/ajax intensive websites ( e.g .
gmail or google docs ) ? Are you visiting a lot of Silverlight-based websites ? Are you reading a lot of PDFs from the browser ? And please , file a bug with Firefox with a subject line along the lines of " Firefox consuming 1.5GB on Windows and Mac " so that the Firefox team can help track down and resolve the problem .
Please include as much information as you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What version of Firefox are you using?What version of Mac are you running on?What version of Windows are you running on?What plugins are you using?What websites are you visiting where you notice high footprint?Are you visiting a lot of Flash-based websites (e.g.
youtube)?Are you constantly using javascript/ajax intensive websites (e.g.
gmail or google docs)?Are you visiting a lot of Silverlight-based websites?Are you reading a lot of PDFs from the browser?And please, file a bug with Firefox with a subject line along the lines of "Firefox consuming 1.5GB on Windows and Mac" so that the Firefox team can help track down and resolve the problem.
Please include as much information as you can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970384</id>
	<title>Re:This is why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264953600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I fucking hate our government. Seriously. They just all appear compeltely incompetent.</p></div><p>...says the person who cannot proof a post before sending misspelled words....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fucking hate our government .
Seriously. They just all appear compeltely incompetent....says the person who can not proof a post before sending misspelled words... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fucking hate our government.
Seriously. They just all appear compeltely incompetent....says the person who cannot proof a post before sending misspelled words....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970128</id>
	<title>I guess its hard to see/tell the truth</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1264951260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thru all those dollar bills that were used to buy them off with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thru all those dollar bills that were used to buy them off with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thru all those dollar bills that were used to buy them off with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971232</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>TechyImmigrant</author>
	<datestamp>1264960800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'To table' has colloquial meaning that might change from place to place. However in both the US and UK, when you are operating under Roberts Rules or a variant of it, an item (e.g. motion) is 'on the floor' when its being discussed. Passing a motion 'To table' it is to figuratively take it from the floor (where people on the floor are discussing it) and place it on the table (so we don't forget it). A motion to take it from the table is a motion to bring it back to the floor for discussion. Sometimes the 'table' is literal and bits of paper are used to record the motion that is tabled.</p><p>The procedural difference between anything else you might do to defer work is that in a motion to table you can't say "let's table this until 3.30pm", you can only table it. To take it from the table requires a new motion to take it from the table.</p><p>UK and US parliamentary procedural rules and Robert's rules of order (used in formal meetings everywhere) are all in the same family of rule sets.</p><p>It's quite possible that in UK parlimentary rules you could table a motion so that it's up for future discussion, without it ever having been on the floor, but I don't know the specifics of the UK rules. However in either case, being 'tabled' means it's not being formally considered, it's just on the table waiting to be picked up for future discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'To table ' has colloquial meaning that might change from place to place .
However in both the US and UK , when you are operating under Roberts Rules or a variant of it , an item ( e.g .
motion ) is 'on the floor ' when its being discussed .
Passing a motion 'To table ' it is to figuratively take it from the floor ( where people on the floor are discussing it ) and place it on the table ( so we do n't forget it ) .
A motion to take it from the table is a motion to bring it back to the floor for discussion .
Sometimes the 'table ' is literal and bits of paper are used to record the motion that is tabled.The procedural difference between anything else you might do to defer work is that in a motion to table you ca n't say " let 's table this until 3.30pm " , you can only table it .
To take it from the table requires a new motion to take it from the table.UK and US parliamentary procedural rules and Robert 's rules of order ( used in formal meetings everywhere ) are all in the same family of rule sets.It 's quite possible that in UK parlimentary rules you could table a motion so that it 's up for future discussion , without it ever having been on the floor , but I do n't know the specifics of the UK rules .
However in either case , being 'tabled ' means it 's not being formally considered , it 's just on the table waiting to be picked up for future discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'To table' has colloquial meaning that might change from place to place.
However in both the US and UK, when you are operating under Roberts Rules or a variant of it, an item (e.g.
motion) is 'on the floor' when its being discussed.
Passing a motion 'To table' it is to figuratively take it from the floor (where people on the floor are discussing it) and place it on the table (so we don't forget it).
A motion to take it from the table is a motion to bring it back to the floor for discussion.
Sometimes the 'table' is literal and bits of paper are used to record the motion that is tabled.The procedural difference between anything else you might do to defer work is that in a motion to table you can't say "let's table this until 3.30pm", you can only table it.
To take it from the table requires a new motion to take it from the table.UK and US parliamentary procedural rules and Robert's rules of order (used in formal meetings everywhere) are all in the same family of rule sets.It's quite possible that in UK parlimentary rules you could table a motion so that it's up for future discussion, without it ever having been on the floor, but I don't know the specifics of the UK rules.
However in either case, being 'tabled' means it's not being formally considered, it's just on the table waiting to be picked up for future discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30975184</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>Robert Zenz</author>
	<datestamp>1264941480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I might actually believe that a fully patched IE8 is on par with other browsers...</p></div><p>Ahm no, not really. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_web\_browsers#Vulnerabilities" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Browser Comparison</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might actually believe that a fully patched IE8 is on par with other browsers...Ahm no , not really .
Browser Comparison [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might actually believe that a fully patched IE8 is on par with other browsers...Ahm no, not really.
Browser Comparison [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970268</id>
	<title>Can't "fully patch" IE...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264952640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't "fully patch" IE because Microsoft has never released a patch that completely turns off the biggest security hole in IE... the tight integration with the desktop and the irreparably flawed "security zones" model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't " fully patch " IE because Microsoft has never released a patch that completely turns off the biggest security hole in IE... the tight integration with the desktop and the irreparably flawed " security zones " model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't "fully patch" IE because Microsoft has never released a patch that completely turns off the biggest security hole in IE... the tight integration with the desktop and the irreparably flawed "security zones" model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969420</id>
	<title>Ah, UK and the big corps.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They just love 'em, dont they? Monsanto, Microsoft, mmmm.</p><p>(More on topic -- of course each browser has its weaknesses. It's not as much technical as it is process, I think)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They just love 'em , dont they ?
Monsanto , Microsoft , mmmm .
( More on topic -- of course each browser has its weaknesses .
It 's not as much technical as it is process , I think )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just love 'em, dont they?
Monsanto, Microsoft, mmmm.
(More on topic -- of course each browser has its weaknesses.
It's not as much technical as it is process, I think)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969876</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264948140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In UK governmental English, "to table" apparently means something like "to propose" or "to bring up for consideration", almost exactly the opposite of the U.S. meaning, which is "to withdraw from further consideration".</p><p>I guess there's some international disagreement over whether this mythical <i>table</i> is where you put things to be considered, or where you put things to die. Perhaps to Britons, putting things on a table is officially proposing them, whereas to Americans, if it's on the table it's inert, and if you want it proposed, you had better have it in your hand waving it in someone's face.</p></div><p>There are actually 2 tables for Americans. One of them is the meeting room table, where you "bring something to the table" and thus propose/bring it up. The other one is the table in the back of the room where they put your Christmas present for your boss (see: National Lampoon's Family Christmas). Thus, "to table."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In UK governmental English , " to table " apparently means something like " to propose " or " to bring up for consideration " , almost exactly the opposite of the U.S. meaning , which is " to withdraw from further consideration " .I guess there 's some international disagreement over whether this mythical table is where you put things to be considered , or where you put things to die .
Perhaps to Britons , putting things on a table is officially proposing them , whereas to Americans , if it 's on the table it 's inert , and if you want it proposed , you had better have it in your hand waving it in someone 's face.There are actually 2 tables for Americans .
One of them is the meeting room table , where you " bring something to the table " and thus propose/bring it up .
The other one is the table in the back of the room where they put your Christmas present for your boss ( see : National Lampoon 's Family Christmas ) .
Thus , " to table .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In UK governmental English, "to table" apparently means something like "to propose" or "to bring up for consideration", almost exactly the opposite of the U.S. meaning, which is "to withdraw from further consideration".I guess there's some international disagreement over whether this mythical table is where you put things to be considered, or where you put things to die.
Perhaps to Britons, putting things on a table is officially proposing them, whereas to Americans, if it's on the table it's inert, and if you want it proposed, you had better have it in your hand waving it in someone's face.There are actually 2 tables for Americans.
One of them is the meeting room table, where you "bring something to the table" and thus propose/bring it up.
The other one is the table in the back of the room where they put your Christmas present for your boss (see: National Lampoon's Family Christmas).
Thus, "to table.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970554</id>
	<title>Re:"Not please" Slashdot readers?</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1264955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny? Wake up, this is sad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny ?
Wake up , this is sad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny?
Wake up, this is sad!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30978070</id>
	<title>UK government</title>
	<author>TigerTails</author>
	<datestamp>1264967700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, yet another failure by our.. crap.. government.

I'm suprised more people haven't noticed the crappy decisions it makes. As many of you know, a few months ago the drugs adviser for sacked for doing his job. He advised people that cannabis is not as harmful or addictive as alcohol and tobacco, things most of us already know. And he got sacked.

Gordon brown is more than half blind, which explains why he can't see the REAL WORLD. Have any of the labour MPs ever used the internet, or even used a computer? It seems none of them have any idea how it works, you just plug in the magic box and magic happens.

At least, next general elections, labour will be gone. That there is no doubt of. They're all bloody useless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yet another failure by our.. crap.. government .
I 'm suprised more people have n't noticed the crappy decisions it makes .
As many of you know , a few months ago the drugs adviser for sacked for doing his job .
He advised people that cannabis is not as harmful or addictive as alcohol and tobacco , things most of us already know .
And he got sacked .
Gordon brown is more than half blind , which explains why he ca n't see the REAL WORLD .
Have any of the labour MPs ever used the internet , or even used a computer ?
It seems none of them have any idea how it works , you just plug in the magic box and magic happens .
At least , next general elections , labour will be gone .
That there is no doubt of .
They 're all bloody useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yet another failure by our.. crap.. government.
I'm suprised more people haven't noticed the crappy decisions it makes.
As many of you know, a few months ago the drugs adviser for sacked for doing his job.
He advised people that cannabis is not as harmful or addictive as alcohol and tobacco, things most of us already know.
And he got sacked.
Gordon brown is more than half blind, which explains why he can't see the REAL WORLD.
Have any of the labour MPs ever used the internet, or even used a computer?
It seems none of them have any idea how it works, you just plug in the magic box and magic happens.
At least, next general elections, labour will be gone.
That there is no doubt of.
They're all bloody useless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971742</id>
	<title>Don't trust it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264964760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will listen to what the UK government has to say about security when they stop losing people's confidential information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will listen to what the UK government has to say about security when they stop losing people 's confidential information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will listen to what the UK government has to say about security when they stop losing people's confidential information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971176</id>
	<title>WMD (Not Windows Media Decoder)</title>
	<author>starglider29a</author>
	<datestamp>1264960440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and yet they had evidence of WMDs in Iraq.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and yet they had evidence of WMDs in Iraq .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and yet they had evidence of WMDs in Iraq.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30976002</id>
	<title>Orly?  Well this is how it'll roll!</title>
	<author>Jagjr</author>
	<datestamp>1264946400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My school uses IE, and i dont care how many computer tech guys say "it's flawless" " we have a firewall"
" i program so im safe".

WTF!!  Windows = Fail!!  Get linux or ubuntu on theese machines and youll never go wrong..

Stupid Government being sucked in by the microshit networks</htmltext>
<tokenext>My school uses IE , and i dont care how many computer tech guys say " it 's flawless " " we have a firewall " " i program so im safe " .
WTF ! ! Windows = Fail ! !
Get linux or ubuntu on theese machines and youll never go wrong. . Stupid Government being sucked in by the microshit networks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My school uses IE, and i dont care how many computer tech guys say "it's flawless" " we have a firewall"
" i program so im safe".
WTF!!  Windows = Fail!!
Get linux or ubuntu on theese machines and youll never go wrong..

Stupid Government being sucked in by the microshit networks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969486</id>
	<title>IE is a must-have for every Government member</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1264942500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With IE, everybody gets a shot at spying others -- and to think we needed KGB for that before!<br>
"Internet Explorer -- You'll explore your neighbours' world."</htmltext>
<tokenext>With IE , everybody gets a shot at spying others -- and to think we needed KGB for that before !
" Internet Explorer -- You 'll explore your neighbours ' world .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With IE, everybody gets a shot at spying others -- and to think we needed KGB for that before!
"Internet Explorer -- You'll explore your neighbours' world.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970748</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264957260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox. Why?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - Low privileged mode. IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user, Firefox doesn't...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - DEP is turned on for IE8 by default. Firefox has to be added (or the "all applications" option).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - IE8 patches can be deployed from the Domain very easily. Firefox on a corporate network is a pain in the butt..."</p><p>And thats why you run a Linux OS. So your not open to all the windows vulnerabilities.<br>Far Safer - um no.... its never safer to not know how something works especially when you know the platform its run on is craptastic, and vulnerable to 10's of thousands of virus's/Malware<br>Low Priviledge Mode - DEP - Windows Patches----- seriously??? in an effort to combat the virus/malware threat they make more middleware bloat rather than fix the initial design.<br>The real problem is to fix a browser issue in windows often requires the user to fully patch their OS????? Not patch the browser.<br>Im sure their mystery patch to fix a windows vulnerability that could allow an attacker to run code on my computer is gonna work fine right???? Um or I guess I'll never know.</p><p>Im actually safer running IE8 on my Linux box than on any version of Windows ever.<br>But why would you??? If there is a problem in firefox i can fix it myself, In IE8 im screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox .
Why ?     - Low privileged mode .
IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user , Firefox does n't.. .     - DEP is turned on for IE8 by default .
Firefox has to be added ( or the " all applications " option ) .
    - IE8 patches can be deployed from the Domain very easily .
Firefox on a corporate network is a pain in the butt... " And thats why you run a Linux OS .
So your not open to all the windows vulnerabilities.Far Safer - um no.... its never safer to not know how something works especially when you know the platform its run on is craptastic , and vulnerable to 10 's of thousands of virus 's/MalwareLow Priviledge Mode - DEP - Windows Patches----- seriously ? ? ?
in an effort to combat the virus/malware threat they make more middleware bloat rather than fix the initial design.The real problem is to fix a browser issue in windows often requires the user to fully patch their OS ? ? ? ? ?
Not patch the browser.Im sure their mystery patch to fix a windows vulnerability that could allow an attacker to run code on my computer is gon na work fine right ? ? ? ?
Um or I guess I 'll never know.Im actually safer running IE8 on my Linux box than on any version of Windows ever.But why would you ? ? ?
If there is a problem in firefox i can fix it myself , In IE8 im screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox.
Why?
    - Low privileged mode.
IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user, Firefox doesn't...
    - DEP is turned on for IE8 by default.
Firefox has to be added (or the "all applications" option).
    - IE8 patches can be deployed from the Domain very easily.
Firefox on a corporate network is a pain in the butt..."And thats why you run a Linux OS.
So your not open to all the windows vulnerabilities.Far Safer - um no.... its never safer to not know how something works especially when you know the platform its run on is craptastic, and vulnerable to 10's of thousands of virus's/MalwareLow Priviledge Mode - DEP - Windows Patches----- seriously???
in an effort to combat the virus/malware threat they make more middleware bloat rather than fix the initial design.The real problem is to fix a browser issue in windows often requires the user to fully patch their OS?????
Not patch the browser.Im sure their mystery patch to fix a windows vulnerability that could allow an attacker to run code on my computer is gonna work fine right????
Um or I guess I'll never know.Im actually safer running IE8 on my Linux box than on any version of Windows ever.But why would you???
If there is a problem in firefox i can fix it myself, In IE8 im screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972464</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>dickens</author>
	<datestamp>1264968780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have seen several instances of presumably trustworthy sites serving ads that contain drive-by attempts.  The ad brokers will sell to anyone..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have seen several instances of presumably trustworthy sites serving ads that contain drive-by attempts .
The ad brokers will sell to anyone. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have seen several instances of presumably trustworthy sites serving ads that contain drive-by attempts.
The ad brokers will sell to anyone..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969516</id>
	<title>"Not please" Slashdot readers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264942860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know why it would "not please" Slashdot readers. I am very pleased. That is the funniest thing I've read all week.
<br> <br>
Nothing like a good laugh to start your morning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why it would " not please " Slashdot readers .
I am very pleased .
That is the funniest thing I 've read all week .
Nothing like a good laugh to start your morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why it would "not please" Slashdot readers.
I am very pleased.
That is the funniest thing I've read all week.
Nothing like a good laugh to start your morning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30979068</id>
	<title>Re:There IS no evidence!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft was made aware of the latest "major" bug in Sept '09, it was finally patched in Jan '10. It sat on the bug report until Google made a fuss. And this isn't the first time that Microsoft has done this. Mozilla on the other hand typically has a much smaller window between bug report and fix.</p><p>http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2786</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft was made aware of the latest " major " bug in Sept '09 , it was finally patched in Jan '10 .
It sat on the bug report until Google made a fuss .
And this is n't the first time that Microsoft has done this .
Mozilla on the other hand typically has a much smaller window between bug report and fix.http : //blogs.zdnet.com/security/ ? p = 2786</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft was made aware of the latest "major" bug in Sept '09, it was finally patched in Jan '10.
It sat on the bug report until Google made a fuss.
And this isn't the first time that Microsoft has done this.
Mozilla on the other hand typically has a much smaller window between bug report and fix.http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2786</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969606</id>
	<title>Forget all other arguments!</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1264944060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether anything is more secure when both often need patches can be argued all day. What should matter and is scientific, is the percentages or users who have been compromised. If you want to be a nitpicky, then compare the same demographics, most preferably the highest risk and or biggest selection. (Perhaps more IT centered people do not use I.E. and can skew the results for an example, but I would take that as a sign myself if that were the case...)</p><p>
&nbsp; This approach centers on "real" and verifiable end result solutions and ignores time wasting arguments. In other words, what really matters will be assessed and highest yield of success suggestions given.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether anything is more secure when both often need patches can be argued all day .
What should matter and is scientific , is the percentages or users who have been compromised .
If you want to be a nitpicky , then compare the same demographics , most preferably the highest risk and or biggest selection .
( Perhaps more IT centered people do not use I.E .
and can skew the results for an example , but I would take that as a sign myself if that were the case... )   This approach centers on " real " and verifiable end result solutions and ignores time wasting arguments .
In other words , what really matters will be assessed and highest yield of success suggestions given .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether anything is more secure when both often need patches can be argued all day.
What should matter and is scientific, is the percentages or users who have been compromised.
If you want to be a nitpicky, then compare the same demographics, most preferably the highest risk and or biggest selection.
(Perhaps more IT centered people do not use I.E.
and can skew the results for an example, but I would take that as a sign myself if that were the case...)
  This approach centers on "real" and verifiable end result solutions and ignores time wasting arguments.
In other words, what really matters will be assessed and highest yield of success suggestions given.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969774</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264946700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IE doesn't have Noscript. That's a pretty big one in terms of security.</p></div><p>And neither does any corporate / educational roll-out of firefox I have ever seen.</p><p>Suppose you give your employees two options, one browser where everything just works, and another where basic browsing is non-functional because they don't see the little "S" in the bottom right is crossed out, which option do you think they'd pick.</p><p>Sure you could block IE and force Firefox + noscript down the throats of luddites, but be prepared to staff your support desk with more employees than combined rest of the company. The vast majority of the people in the world have enough problems remembering how to log in to their computers in the morning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE does n't have Noscript .
That 's a pretty big one in terms of security.And neither does any corporate / educational roll-out of firefox I have ever seen.Suppose you give your employees two options , one browser where everything just works , and another where basic browsing is non-functional because they do n't see the little " S " in the bottom right is crossed out , which option do you think they 'd pick.Sure you could block IE and force Firefox + noscript down the throats of luddites , but be prepared to staff your support desk with more employees than combined rest of the company .
The vast majority of the people in the world have enough problems remembering how to log in to their computers in the morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE doesn't have Noscript.
That's a pretty big one in terms of security.And neither does any corporate / educational roll-out of firefox I have ever seen.Suppose you give your employees two options, one browser where everything just works, and another where basic browsing is non-functional because they don't see the little "S" in the bottom right is crossed out, which option do you think they'd pick.Sure you could block IE and force Firefox + noscript down the throats of luddites, but be prepared to staff your support desk with more employees than combined rest of the company.
The vast majority of the people in the world have enough problems remembering how to log in to their computers in the morning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30976736</id>
	<title>If A = B, then B = A</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1264952820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I take from this is that IE7 and IE8 is just as insecure (or even less secure) as IE6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I take from this is that IE7 and IE8 is just as insecure ( or even less secure ) as IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I take from this is that IE7 and IE8 is just as insecure (or even less secure) as IE6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971036</id>
	<title>Yes, and there's no evidence aboutWin-only viruses</title>
	<author>alukin</author>
	<datestamp>1264959420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What broser could be secure on Windows? Almost any brouser is OK on Linux but no one on Windows. Vulnerability of OS and availability ob billions viruses, troyans makes useless any broser and whole computer on Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What broser could be secure on Windows ?
Almost any brouser is OK on Linux but no one on Windows .
Vulnerability of OS and availability ob billions viruses , troyans makes useless any broser and whole computer on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What broser could be secure on Windows?
Almost any brouser is OK on Linux but no one on Windows.
Vulnerability of OS and availability ob billions viruses, troyans makes useless any broser and whole computer on Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the trend of users getting infected seems to indicate IE is worse. User stupidity hurts, but so do unpatched remote code execution flaws.</p><p>Microsoft likes to tout how insecure other browsers and OS's are because they receive more security updates, but I'm not convinced. It's a poor measurement of security.</p><p>There's no way to know how many landmine exploits are in IE. I consider Firefox more secure, because as its market share goes up, the number of ITW exploits doesn't seem to be exploding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the trend of users getting infected seems to indicate IE is worse .
User stupidity hurts , but so do unpatched remote code execution flaws.Microsoft likes to tout how insecure other browsers and OS 's are because they receive more security updates , but I 'm not convinced .
It 's a poor measurement of security.There 's no way to know how many landmine exploits are in IE .
I consider Firefox more secure , because as its market share goes up , the number of ITW exploits does n't seem to be exploding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the trend of users getting infected seems to indicate IE is worse.
User stupidity hurts, but so do unpatched remote code execution flaws.Microsoft likes to tout how insecure other browsers and OS's are because they receive more security updates, but I'm not convinced.
It's a poor measurement of security.There's no way to know how many landmine exploits are in IE.
I consider Firefox more secure, because as its market share goes up, the number of ITW exploits doesn't seem to be exploding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971280</id>
	<title>Define "prove"</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1264961160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The level/degree of proof the UK government seems to be requiring for this is the 'scientific' type. For most things in life, statistical analysis tends to be enough.</p><p>What this guy said is akin to saying that North Korea has the strongest army in the world, because there's no proof to the contrary.</p><p>Pick any of these:</p><p>1) Lackluster/no security features.<br>2) Lack of improvement over the years. One of the cardinal rules for security is continual improvement.<br>3) Repeated exploit of said piece of crap.<br>4) Microsoft itself more-or-less admitting it's insecure and unrepairable - they effectively abandoned it years ago.<br>5) Anecdotal evidence from tens of thousands of computer repair types; I guarantee you IE is the vector for 9 out of 10 malware infections, and most of those are probably IE.</p><p>I'd wager they've been paid off. Anyone with even the slightest amount of intellect can look at the information available and determine that IE6 is rubbish. It's a hell of a lot less proof than most governmental bodies act - often, said bodies act in direct contradiction to the facts for the purpose of special interests money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The level/degree of proof the UK government seems to be requiring for this is the 'scientific ' type .
For most things in life , statistical analysis tends to be enough.What this guy said is akin to saying that North Korea has the strongest army in the world , because there 's no proof to the contrary.Pick any of these : 1 ) Lackluster/no security features.2 ) Lack of improvement over the years .
One of the cardinal rules for security is continual improvement.3 ) Repeated exploit of said piece of crap.4 ) Microsoft itself more-or-less admitting it 's insecure and unrepairable - they effectively abandoned it years ago.5 ) Anecdotal evidence from tens of thousands of computer repair types ; I guarantee you IE is the vector for 9 out of 10 malware infections , and most of those are probably IE.I 'd wager they 've been paid off .
Anyone with even the slightest amount of intellect can look at the information available and determine that IE6 is rubbish .
It 's a hell of a lot less proof than most governmental bodies act - often , said bodies act in direct contradiction to the facts for the purpose of special interests money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The level/degree of proof the UK government seems to be requiring for this is the 'scientific' type.
For most things in life, statistical analysis tends to be enough.What this guy said is akin to saying that North Korea has the strongest army in the world, because there's no proof to the contrary.Pick any of these:1) Lackluster/no security features.2) Lack of improvement over the years.
One of the cardinal rules for security is continual improvement.3) Repeated exploit of said piece of crap.4) Microsoft itself more-or-less admitting it's insecure and unrepairable - they effectively abandoned it years ago.5) Anecdotal evidence from tens of thousands of computer repair types; I guarantee you IE is the vector for 9 out of 10 malware infections, and most of those are probably IE.I'd wager they've been paid off.
Anyone with even the slightest amount of intellect can look at the information available and determine that IE6 is rubbish.
It's a hell of a lot less proof than most governmental bodies act - often, said bodies act in direct contradiction to the facts for the purpose of special interests money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969764</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264946580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please post a complete list of your installed extensions. I run some ten extensions and I do not have the problem you mention unless I leave open a tab with an incompetently-coded, javascript-heavy website, like Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please post a complete list of your installed extensions .
I run some ten extensions and I do not have the problem you mention unless I leave open a tab with an incompetently-coded , javascript-heavy website , like Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please post a complete list of your installed extensions.
I run some ten extensions and I do not have the problem you mention unless I leave open a tab with an incompetently-coded, javascript-heavy website, like Facebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969354</id>
	<title>This is eveidence for something else...</title>
	<author>Mojo66</author>
	<datestamp>1264940940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is evidence for the fact that nowadays, decisions aren't made by politicians anymore, but by lobbyists. Politicians are just the muppets who stand in front of the camera. Best example is my country, Germany, where the FDP is doing this openly, it is called "clientel politics" here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is evidence for the fact that nowadays , decisions are n't made by politicians anymore , but by lobbyists .
Politicians are just the muppets who stand in front of the camera .
Best example is my country , Germany , where the FDP is doing this openly , it is called " clientel politics " here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is evidence for the fact that nowadays, decisions aren't made by politicians anymore, but by lobbyists.
Politicians are just the muppets who stand in front of the camera.
Best example is my country, Germany, where the FDP is doing this openly, it is called "clientel politics" here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971060</id>
	<title>Re:Track record</title>
	<author>6031769</author>
	<datestamp>1264959540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trust me, mentioning anything about "track record" is absolutely the last thing the current British government wants to do, especially when it comes to IT systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trust me , mentioning anything about " track record " is absolutely the last thing the current British government wants to do , especially when it comes to IT systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trust me, mentioning anything about "track record" is absolutely the last thing the current British government wants to do, especially when it comes to IT systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969712</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of evidence shouldn't be a problem</title>
	<author>Kavli</author>
	<datestamp>1264946040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WMD? Like in "Windows of Mass Destruction" then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WMD ?
Like in " Windows of Mass Destruction " then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WMD?
Like in "Windows of Mass Destruction" then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970256</id>
	<title>Track record</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1264952520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it better to go by track record than direct evidence for "current safety" simply because exploits are discovered and not readily known?  If IE has a bad track record and Firefox doesn't, it might indicate that Firefox is still secure as there may be undiscovered or undisclosed exploits in IE due to shitty security programming that the UK gov't simply doesn't know about.  Additionally, future updates could introduce more bugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it better to go by track record than direct evidence for " current safety " simply because exploits are discovered and not readily known ?
If IE has a bad track record and Firefox does n't , it might indicate that Firefox is still secure as there may be undiscovered or undisclosed exploits in IE due to shitty security programming that the UK gov't simply does n't know about .
Additionally , future updates could introduce more bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it better to go by track record than direct evidence for "current safety" simply because exploits are discovered and not readily known?
If IE has a bad track record and Firefox doesn't, it might indicate that Firefox is still secure as there may be undiscovered or undisclosed exploits in IE due to shitty security programming that the UK gov't simply doesn't know about.
Additionally, future updates could introduce more bugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971554</id>
	<title>Alas, the UK is hopelessly in thrall to Microsoft</title>
	<author>echtertyp</author>
	<datestamp>1264963260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who has worked in the U.S., the U.K. and continental Europe, I have to say that both public and private sectors in the UK have an unparalleled blind allegiance to Microsoft.  It's like nothing I've ever seen.
<br> <br>
 I recall seeing a timeline of the Internet's development at a display in London, and the first two dots were the 1973 launch of DARPAnet and then, incredibly, the founding of Microsoft in 1979.  There was no dot for anything from Britain's own Tim Berners-Lee, for the development of DNS by Mockapetris, or other real milestones.
<br> <br>
Honestly, it's sad to see what has happened to the land of Francis Bacon, Newton, Babbage and Turing.  The UK today seems run by men without an original thought in their entire being, who slavishly follow fads from American business schools and figure one is always right if you tie your fortunes to those of Microsoft.  This doesn't bode well for the future of that island nation, is all I can say.  You can't rely forever on frothy financial instruments to fund purchases of food, energy and all technology from someone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has worked in the U.S. , the U.K. and continental Europe , I have to say that both public and private sectors in the UK have an unparalleled blind allegiance to Microsoft .
It 's like nothing I 've ever seen .
I recall seeing a timeline of the Internet 's development at a display in London , and the first two dots were the 1973 launch of DARPAnet and then , incredibly , the founding of Microsoft in 1979 .
There was no dot for anything from Britain 's own Tim Berners-Lee , for the development of DNS by Mockapetris , or other real milestones .
Honestly , it 's sad to see what has happened to the land of Francis Bacon , Newton , Babbage and Turing .
The UK today seems run by men without an original thought in their entire being , who slavishly follow fads from American business schools and figure one is always right if you tie your fortunes to those of Microsoft .
This does n't bode well for the future of that island nation , is all I can say .
You ca n't rely forever on frothy financial instruments to fund purchases of food , energy and all technology from someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has worked in the U.S., the U.K. and continental Europe, I have to say that both public and private sectors in the UK have an unparalleled blind allegiance to Microsoft.
It's like nothing I've ever seen.
I recall seeing a timeline of the Internet's development at a display in London, and the first two dots were the 1973 launch of DARPAnet and then, incredibly, the founding of Microsoft in 1979.
There was no dot for anything from Britain's own Tim Berners-Lee, for the development of DNS by Mockapetris, or other real milestones.
Honestly, it's sad to see what has happened to the land of Francis Bacon, Newton, Babbage and Turing.
The UK today seems run by men without an original thought in their entire being, who slavishly follow fads from American business schools and figure one is always right if you tie your fortunes to those of Microsoft.
This doesn't bode well for the future of that island nation, is all I can say.
You can't rely forever on frothy financial instruments to fund purchases of food, energy and all technology from someone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30982638</id>
	<title>Re:Well excuse me. but i trust germans over brits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>matters like these. with their paranoid attention to detail, psychopathic inclination to procedure, and ungodly patience with working on intricate technical details, any word from germans in that area would trample any word from britain at any point for me.</p><p>the fact that u.k. government has been shitting and screwing up in every other field for the last 10 years does not help either.</p></div><p>So what you really mean is that you just don't like Brits and this just confirms your opinion?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>matters like these .
with their paranoid attention to detail , psychopathic inclination to procedure , and ungodly patience with working on intricate technical details , any word from germans in that area would trample any word from britain at any point for me.the fact that u.k. government has been shitting and screwing up in every other field for the last 10 years does not help either.So what you really mean is that you just do n't like Brits and this just confirms your opinion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>matters like these.
with their paranoid attention to detail, psychopathic inclination to procedure, and ungodly patience with working on intricate technical details, any word from germans in that area would trample any word from britain at any point for me.the fact that u.k. government has been shitting and screwing up in every other field for the last 10 years does not help either.So what you really mean is that you just don't like Brits and this just confirms your opinion?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970986</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>shani</author>
	<datestamp>1264959060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that this is a shorthand phrase. in the US people mean 'take it off the table', where presumably it is already being considered. In her majesty's islands people mean 'put it on the table for future consideration'. The real problem is that verbing weirds language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that this is a shorthand phrase .
in the US people mean 'take it off the table ' , where presumably it is already being considered .
In her majesty 's islands people mean 'put it on the table for future consideration' .
The real problem is that verbing weirds language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that this is a shorthand phrase.
in the US people mean 'take it off the table', where presumably it is already being considered.
In her majesty's islands people mean 'put it on the table for future consideration'.
The real problem is that verbing weirds language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971440</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264962480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox. Why?</p><p>
&nbsp; - Low privileged mode. IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user, Firefox doesn't...</p></div><p>It's just low priviledged enough to flash my bios with byte code LOLOLOLOLPWNED.  Very helpful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox .
Why ?   - Low privileged mode .
IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user , Firefox does n't...It 's just low priviledged enough to flash my bios with byte code LOLOLOLOLPWNED .
Very helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox.
Why?
  - Low privileged mode.
IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user, Firefox doesn't...It's just low priviledged enough to flash my bios with byte code LOLOLOLOLPWNED.
Very helpful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969338</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>Daengbo</author>
	<datestamp>1264940700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might actually believe that a fully patched IE8 is on par with other browsers, but the UK gov't will undoubtedly take the Home Office's decision to mean that IE6 is OK, too. That's scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might actually believe that a fully patched IE8 is on par with other browsers , but the UK gov't will undoubtedly take the Home Office 's decision to mean that IE6 is OK , too .
That 's scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might actually believe that a fully patched IE8 is on par with other browsers, but the UK gov't will undoubtedly take the Home Office's decision to mean that IE6 is OK, too.
That's scary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30978534</id>
	<title>Main problem here IS</title>
	<author>Peter Nikolic</author>
	<datestamp>1265017440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main problem here is that our so called Government over here is so far up the M$ Corp ass that it dont know any thing else .</p><p>As with everything else to do with so called Government here they are so fucking lame they could not organise a pissup in a brewery after a 10 year course on just how to go about it , The sooner we torch the whole freaking lot of them and put the People in power the better bunch of fucking twats</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problem here is that our so called Government over here is so far up the M $ Corp ass that it dont know any thing else .As with everything else to do with so called Government here they are so fucking lame they could not organise a pissup in a brewery after a 10 year course on just how to go about it , The sooner we torch the whole freaking lot of them and put the People in power the better bunch of fucking twats</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problem here is that our so called Government over here is so far up the M$ Corp ass that it dont know any thing else .As with everything else to do with so called Government here they are so fucking lame they could not organise a pissup in a brewery after a 10 year course on just how to go about it , The sooner we torch the whole freaking lot of them and put the People in power the better bunch of fucking twats</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969514</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264942800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the trend of users getting infected seems to indicate IE is worse.</p></div><p>And if you factor in market share? Meaning, all those computers that had ie installed on them and the folks who never switched to FF or even updated their ie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the trend of users getting infected seems to indicate IE is worse.And if you factor in market share ?
Meaning , all those computers that had ie installed on them and the folks who never switched to FF or even updated their ie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the trend of users getting infected seems to indicate IE is worse.And if you factor in market share?
Meaning, all those computers that had ie installed on them and the folks who never switched to FF or even updated their ie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971648</id>
	<title>Re:Are these the same people....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264963980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>George Bush isn't politics anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>George Bush is n't politics anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George Bush isn't politics anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969772</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1264946700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox. Why?</p><p>  - Low privileged mode. IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user, Firefox doesn't...</p></div> </blockquote><p>And how many people (or corporations) are running Vista/Windows 7?  Yes, it's a great feature if it's available, but once you start adding such caveats, one might as well point out running Firefox under SELinux/Apparmor in Linux is pretty much as secure.  Now, if you mean as for the general public having recently (ie, the last few years) bought a computer, you're probably right; they're likely to be using a proper version of Windows and have auto updates set to have the latest patched IE8.  Still, the fact that so many people are using XP really should result in at least a marginally more nuanced statement instead of making statements based on one or more grand presumptions.</p><blockquote><div><p>  - DEP is turned on for IE8 by default. Firefox has to be added (or the "all applications" option).</p></div></blockquote><p>"By default", IE8 isn't even installed on XP or Vista and in all cases there's a need for patching.  Truthfully, I'm not certain, but Firefox might be compiled with stack protection anyways, so I'm not even sure if DEP is really necessary for Firefox.  If DEP is necessary, then yes, for many home users this is an issue because users might be oblivious to the need to enable DEP.  But on corporate networks, at least, it would be par the course of configuration that DEP would be enabled.</p><blockquote><div><p>  - IE8 patches can be deployed from the Domain very easily. Firefox on a corporate network is a pain in the butt...</p></div></blockquote><p>Why would you need to patch a fully patched IE8?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Seriously, though, I've heard this complaint, and it seems a valid one.  However, if you do run a corporate network, I'm pretty sure the "pain in the butt" nature of deployment isn't going to stop you from choosing Firefox over IE8.  Why?  Because the risk increase of dealing with infected networks is probably a greater "pain in the butt".  But, odds are good that the IT staff have no real say in what's used anyways (consider the repeated statements of IE6 still being used because of corporate intranet applications), so all in all it's a moot point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox .
Why ? - Low privileged mode .
IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user , Firefox does n't... And how many people ( or corporations ) are running Vista/Windows 7 ?
Yes , it 's a great feature if it 's available , but once you start adding such caveats , one might as well point out running Firefox under SELinux/Apparmor in Linux is pretty much as secure .
Now , if you mean as for the general public having recently ( ie , the last few years ) bought a computer , you 're probably right ; they 're likely to be using a proper version of Windows and have auto updates set to have the latest patched IE8 .
Still , the fact that so many people are using XP really should result in at least a marginally more nuanced statement instead of making statements based on one or more grand presumptions .
- DEP is turned on for IE8 by default .
Firefox has to be added ( or the " all applications " option ) .
" By default " , IE8 is n't even installed on XP or Vista and in all cases there 's a need for patching .
Truthfully , I 'm not certain , but Firefox might be compiled with stack protection anyways , so I 'm not even sure if DEP is really necessary for Firefox .
If DEP is necessary , then yes , for many home users this is an issue because users might be oblivious to the need to enable DEP .
But on corporate networks , at least , it would be par the course of configuration that DEP would be enabled .
- IE8 patches can be deployed from the Domain very easily .
Firefox on a corporate network is a pain in the butt...Why would you need to patch a fully patched IE8 ?
: ) Seriously , though , I 've heard this complaint , and it seems a valid one .
However , if you do run a corporate network , I 'm pretty sure the " pain in the butt " nature of deployment is n't going to stop you from choosing Firefox over IE8 .
Why ? Because the risk increase of dealing with infected networks is probably a greater " pain in the butt " .
But , odds are good that the IT staff have no real say in what 's used anyways ( consider the repeated statements of IE6 still being used because of corporate intranet applications ) , so all in all it 's a moot point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fully patched IE8 running on either Vista or Windows 7 is far safer than Firefox.
Why?  - Low privileged mode.
IE8 runs with lower rights than the logged in user, Firefox doesn't... And how many people (or corporations) are running Vista/Windows 7?
Yes, it's a great feature if it's available, but once you start adding such caveats, one might as well point out running Firefox under SELinux/Apparmor in Linux is pretty much as secure.
Now, if you mean as for the general public having recently (ie, the last few years) bought a computer, you're probably right; they're likely to be using a proper version of Windows and have auto updates set to have the latest patched IE8.
Still, the fact that so many people are using XP really should result in at least a marginally more nuanced statement instead of making statements based on one or more grand presumptions.
- DEP is turned on for IE8 by default.
Firefox has to be added (or the "all applications" option).
"By default", IE8 isn't even installed on XP or Vista and in all cases there's a need for patching.
Truthfully, I'm not certain, but Firefox might be compiled with stack protection anyways, so I'm not even sure if DEP is really necessary for Firefox.
If DEP is necessary, then yes, for many home users this is an issue because users might be oblivious to the need to enable DEP.
But on corporate networks, at least, it would be par the course of configuration that DEP would be enabled.
- IE8 patches can be deployed from the Domain very easily.
Firefox on a corporate network is a pain in the butt...Why would you need to patch a fully patched IE8?
:)  Seriously, though, I've heard this complaint, and it seems a valid one.
However, if you do run a corporate network, I'm pretty sure the "pain in the butt" nature of deployment isn't going to stop you from choosing Firefox over IE8.
Why?  Because the risk increase of dealing with infected networks is probably a greater "pain in the butt".
But, odds are good that the IT staff have no real say in what's used anyways (consider the repeated statements of IE6 still being used because of corporate intranet applications), so all in all it's a moot point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970676</id>
	<title>Congratulations Microsoft</title>
	<author>George Bentovich</author>
	<datestamp>1264956600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congratulations Microsoft for once again proving the robustness of its systems.The approval of the UK government shows the world that softwares that undergo serious engineering processes are far superior than "free" softwares developed by uncoordinated undertrained teams. Microsoft had already proven its pioneerism when it was the first company to release a 64 Bits Browser, thus ensuring more security and protection against malwares while surfing the web.
It's only fair that Bill Gates is a billionaire, after all, he created the company that allowed the pervasive computing we see today that is the very own foundation of the Internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations Microsoft for once again proving the robustness of its systems.The approval of the UK government shows the world that softwares that undergo serious engineering processes are far superior than " free " softwares developed by uncoordinated undertrained teams .
Microsoft had already proven its pioneerism when it was the first company to release a 64 Bits Browser , thus ensuring more security and protection against malwares while surfing the web .
It 's only fair that Bill Gates is a billionaire , after all , he created the company that allowed the pervasive computing we see today that is the very own foundation of the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations Microsoft for once again proving the robustness of its systems.The approval of the UK government shows the world that softwares that undergo serious engineering processes are far superior than "free" softwares developed by uncoordinated undertrained teams.
Microsoft had already proven its pioneerism when it was the first company to release a 64 Bits Browser, thus ensuring more security and protection against malwares while surfing the web.
It's only fair that Bill Gates is a billionaire, after all, he created the company that allowed the pervasive computing we see today that is the very own foundation of the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969814</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>darthflo</author>
	<datestamp>1264947300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera runs pretty well on macs. With Opera Link, it'll synchronize your bookmarks to any of your other Opera installations (not to other browsers, though). Say goodbye to Fx and make the web a better place today!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera runs pretty well on macs .
With Opera Link , it 'll synchronize your bookmarks to any of your other Opera installations ( not to other browsers , though ) .
Say goodbye to Fx and make the web a better place today !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera runs pretty well on macs.
With Opera Link, it'll synchronize your bookmarks to any of your other Opera installations (not to other browsers, though).
Say goodbye to Fx and make the web a better place today!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250</id>
	<title>Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>toQDuj</author>
	<datestamp>1264939440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's very likely true, as the stupidity of the user remains the weakest factor in security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's very likely true , as the stupidity of the user remains the weakest factor in security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's very likely true, as the stupidity of the user remains the weakest factor in security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969296</id>
	<title>Assuming they are actually using IE8.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To a certain extent, other browsers benefit from their low levels of use. IE is SO common that pretty much all sophisticated attacks target it. Given that a targeted attack on the uk gov't will target whatever browser they use, switching browser doesn't make all that much sense. And these aren't the days of IE6 anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To a certain extent , other browsers benefit from their low levels of use .
IE is SO common that pretty much all sophisticated attacks target it .
Given that a targeted attack on the uk gov't will target whatever browser they use , switching browser does n't make all that much sense .
And these are n't the days of IE6 anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To a certain extent, other browsers benefit from their low levels of use.
IE is SO common that pretty much all sophisticated attacks target it.
Given that a targeted attack on the uk gov't will target whatever browser they use, switching browser doesn't make all that much sense.
And these aren't the days of IE6 anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970406</id>
	<title>IE or "the latest fully patched versions" of IE?</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1264953840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I notice is that the headline and most of the discussion here talk about the security of "IE", while the Home Office said "the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer".  There seems to be little understanding that these aren't synonyms.</p><p>But does <b>anyone</b> here work for an organization of any sort (government, industry, academia, whatever) that requires that everyone use "the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer"?</p><p>In all the cases that I know of, when there's such standardization, it's for releases that existed shortly before the standard was established.  It's now years later, and the standard is still in place (though often violated by workers who want better security or more features).</p><p>A number of people have written about organizations that are still standardized on IE6 and don't permit upgrades to IE8.  Is there any data available on how widespread this might be?  In my experience, such data is hard to come by, since both governments and private corporations tend to be secretive about their inner workings.</p><p>So could the Home Office be pushing for upgrades to W7+IE8?  Nah; I thought not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I notice is that the headline and most of the discussion here talk about the security of " IE " , while the Home Office said " the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer " .
There seems to be little understanding that these are n't synonyms.But does anyone here work for an organization of any sort ( government , industry , academia , whatever ) that requires that everyone use " the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer " ? In all the cases that I know of , when there 's such standardization , it 's for releases that existed shortly before the standard was established .
It 's now years later , and the standard is still in place ( though often violated by workers who want better security or more features ) .A number of people have written about organizations that are still standardized on IE6 and do n't permit upgrades to IE8 .
Is there any data available on how widespread this might be ?
In my experience , such data is hard to come by , since both governments and private corporations tend to be secretive about their inner workings.So could the Home Office be pushing for upgrades to W7 + IE8 ?
Nah ; I thought not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I notice is that the headline and most of the discussion here talk about the security of "IE", while the Home Office said "the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer".
There seems to be little understanding that these aren't synonyms.But does anyone here work for an organization of any sort (government, industry, academia, whatever) that requires that everyone use "the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer"?In all the cases that I know of, when there's such standardization, it's for releases that existed shortly before the standard was established.
It's now years later, and the standard is still in place (though often violated by workers who want better security or more features).A number of people have written about organizations that are still standardized on IE6 and don't permit upgrades to IE8.
Is there any data available on how widespread this might be?
In my experience, such data is hard to come by, since both governments and private corporations tend to be secretive about their inner workings.So could the Home Office be pushing for upgrades to W7+IE8?
Nah; I thought not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969562</id>
	<title>Possibly related to this...</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1264943520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... maybe:</p><p><a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/05/11/235953/Is-the-Microsoft-public-sector-deal-good-value-for-Britain.htm" title="computerweekly.com">http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/05/11/235953/Is-the-Microsoft-public-sector-deal-good-value-for-Britain.htm</a> [computerweekly.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... maybe : http : //www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/05/11/235953/Is-the-Microsoft-public-sector-deal-good-value-for-Britain.htm [ computerweekly.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... maybe:http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/05/11/235953/Is-the-Microsoft-public-sector-deal-good-value-for-Britain.htm [computerweekly.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971242</id>
	<title>Proof Positive</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1264960860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That the UK government does not read Slashdot. Fools!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That the UK government does not read Slashdot .
Fools !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the UK government does not read Slashdot.
Fools!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30976864</id>
	<title>Re:I guess its hard to see/tell the truth</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264954500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Thru all those dollar bills that were used to buy them off with.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Now that is slander good sir, no British politician would accept money from a US corporation...<br> <br>

Until it has been converted into proper British Pounds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thru all those dollar bills that were used to buy them off with .
Now that is slander good sir , no British politician would accept money from a US corporation.. . Until it has been converted into proper British Pounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thru all those dollar bills that were used to buy them off with.
Now that is slander good sir, no British politician would accept money from a US corporation... 

Until it has been converted into proper British Pounds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969406</id>
	<title>Same source that said Saddam Hussein has WMD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the UK government. It's very likely that whatever they say, the opposite is true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the UK government .
It 's very likely that whatever they say , the opposite is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the UK government.
It's very likely that whatever they say, the opposite is true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30974388</id>
	<title>Re:There IS no evidence!</title>
	<author>pgn674</author>
	<datestamp>1264935960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ergo, there is no evidence that the latest patched version of Internet Explorer are less secure, since the officially "known" security features have been fixed.</p></div><p>What about this unpatched, known vulnerability: <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/24314/" title="secunia.com">Internet Explorer Charset Inheritance Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability - Secunia Advisories - Vulnerability Information - Secunia.com</a> [secunia.com]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ergo , there is no evidence that the latest patched version of Internet Explorer are less secure , since the officially " known " security features have been fixed.What about this unpatched , known vulnerability : Internet Explorer Charset Inheritance Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability - Secunia Advisories - Vulnerability Information - Secunia.com [ secunia.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ergo, there is no evidence that the latest patched version of Internet Explorer are less secure, since the officially "known" security features have been fixed.What about this unpatched, known vulnerability: Internet Explorer Charset Inheritance Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability - Secunia Advisories - Vulnerability Information - Secunia.com [secunia.com]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972156</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1264967040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Now I entirely grant that this is Microsoft's browser running on Microsoft's OS and thus it gains unfair advantages [...]</i>
</p><p>Why ?  Which of your 3 piece of of functionality is/are not available for any software to use ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I entirely grant that this is Microsoft 's browser running on Microsoft 's OS and thus it gains unfair advantages [ ... ] Why ?
Which of your 3 piece of of functionality is/are not available for any software to use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Now I entirely grant that this is Microsoft's browser running on Microsoft's OS and thus it gains unfair advantages [...]
Why ?
Which of your 3 piece of of functionality is/are not available for any software to use ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30974456</id>
	<title>Easy answer..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is on the Microsoft pages themselves.  I'm just singling out <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/uk/press/executives/matthew\_bishop.mspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">one simple example</a> [microsoft.com] (check where he worked before he joined MS) but it would be unfair on the guy to claim he's the only one: MS employs people from the sectors they want to sell into.<br>If you have influence in a sector and are planning to leave, MS will pay for your network.  It's not unusual - happens everywhere - but I must admit it has worked spectacularly well with New Labour.</p><p>It's a sort of reverse McKinsey where leavers get an exit bonus so they'll ring their pals if they need any consulting done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is on the Microsoft pages themselves .
I 'm just singling out one simple example [ microsoft.com ] ( check where he worked before he joined MS ) but it would be unfair on the guy to claim he 's the only one : MS employs people from the sectors they want to sell into.If you have influence in a sector and are planning to leave , MS will pay for your network .
It 's not unusual - happens everywhere - but I must admit it has worked spectacularly well with New Labour.It 's a sort of reverse McKinsey where leavers get an exit bonus so they 'll ring their pals if they need any consulting done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is on the Microsoft pages themselves.
I'm just singling out one simple example [microsoft.com] (check where he worked before he joined MS) but it would be unfair on the guy to claim he's the only one: MS employs people from the sectors they want to sell into.If you have influence in a sector and are planning to leave, MS will pay for your network.
It's not unusual - happens everywhere - but I must admit it has worked spectacularly well with New Labour.It's a sort of reverse McKinsey where leavers get an exit bonus so they'll ring their pals if they need any consulting done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970058</id>
	<title>Re:Let's face it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264950480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While market share might be a factor (infact almost definitely IS a factor) in the security of Windows vs OS X/Linux, IE vs Firefox, etc, it's more likely the architecture.
</p><p>
The architecture of Unix systems (running as root, user permissions, etc) makes/made it very hard for malware to be written for it. At least, to cause any significant damage.</p><p>
Though in the case of Firefox vs IE, I'm not so sure. I know little about either browser's architecture. But it might not be just market share that's the reason for the huge number of sploits for IE as opposed to firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While market share might be a factor ( infact almost definitely IS a factor ) in the security of Windows vs OS X/Linux , IE vs Firefox , etc , it 's more likely the architecture .
The architecture of Unix systems ( running as root , user permissions , etc ) makes/made it very hard for malware to be written for it .
At least , to cause any significant damage .
Though in the case of Firefox vs IE , I 'm not so sure .
I know little about either browser 's architecture .
But it might not be just market share that 's the reason for the huge number of sploits for IE as opposed to firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While market share might be a factor (infact almost definitely IS a factor) in the security of Windows vs OS X/Linux, IE vs Firefox, etc, it's more likely the architecture.
The architecture of Unix systems (running as root, user permissions, etc) makes/made it very hard for malware to be written for it.
At least, to cause any significant damage.
Though in the case of Firefox vs IE, I'm not so sure.
I know little about either browser's architecture.
But it might not be just market share that's the reason for the huge number of sploits for IE as opposed to firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969682</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>TheRealGrogan</author>
	<datestamp>1264945500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's just typical FUD propaganda

- IE, in low privileged mode, can still compromise the system (All it takes is a malicious codec download for one example and a stupid user for another). Besides, the protected mode only works if User Account Control is on and if it is on, then no app is running as an administrator anyway and it's a moot point. (The user's privileges ARE low, until elevated through the nags. If a user isn't in the administrators group, then they can't even allow the nags without entering an administrator password, which they wouldn't have)

- DEP... so what? That just prevents a specific type of exploit. It can cause problems too... like when there's absolutely nothing wrong on the system and some stupid Windows component gets shut down because DEP throws an exception. (and if a process was headed for a crash, and that's the exception that gets triggered because something got relocated to data pages it's misleading)

- Firefox is pretty easy to update (without it breaking itself) and only a Microsoft stooge could spin that into something difficult. No, it's not the Microsoft way, but that doesn't mean it's difficult.

Internet Explorer is, and will ever remain, shitware. It's still got much of the old code base... they just keep sewing more arms onto the octopus. Here's one example. To this day, that piece of shit can't download files larger than 4 Gb. What other gotchas are lurking in that mess of proprietary code that's been the base of it since the 90's?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just typical FUD propaganda - IE , in low privileged mode , can still compromise the system ( All it takes is a malicious codec download for one example and a stupid user for another ) .
Besides , the protected mode only works if User Account Control is on and if it is on , then no app is running as an administrator anyway and it 's a moot point .
( The user 's privileges ARE low , until elevated through the nags .
If a user is n't in the administrators group , then they ca n't even allow the nags without entering an administrator password , which they would n't have ) - DEP... so what ?
That just prevents a specific type of exploit .
It can cause problems too... like when there 's absolutely nothing wrong on the system and some stupid Windows component gets shut down because DEP throws an exception .
( and if a process was headed for a crash , and that 's the exception that gets triggered because something got relocated to data pages it 's misleading ) - Firefox is pretty easy to update ( without it breaking itself ) and only a Microsoft stooge could spin that into something difficult .
No , it 's not the Microsoft way , but that does n't mean it 's difficult .
Internet Explorer is , and will ever remain , shitware .
It 's still got much of the old code base... they just keep sewing more arms onto the octopus .
Here 's one example .
To this day , that piece of shit ca n't download files larger than 4 Gb .
What other gotchas are lurking in that mess of proprietary code that 's been the base of it since the 90 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just typical FUD propaganda

- IE, in low privileged mode, can still compromise the system (All it takes is a malicious codec download for one example and a stupid user for another).
Besides, the protected mode only works if User Account Control is on and if it is on, then no app is running as an administrator anyway and it's a moot point.
(The user's privileges ARE low, until elevated through the nags.
If a user isn't in the administrators group, then they can't even allow the nags without entering an administrator password, which they wouldn't have)

- DEP... so what?
That just prevents a specific type of exploit.
It can cause problems too... like when there's absolutely nothing wrong on the system and some stupid Windows component gets shut down because DEP throws an exception.
(and if a process was headed for a crash, and that's the exception that gets triggered because something got relocated to data pages it's misleading)

- Firefox is pretty easy to update (without it breaking itself) and only a Microsoft stooge could spin that into something difficult.
No, it's not the Microsoft way, but that doesn't mean it's difficult.
Internet Explorer is, and will ever remain, shitware.
It's still got much of the old code base... they just keep sewing more arms onto the octopus.
Here's one example.
To this day, that piece of shit can't download files larger than 4 Gb.
What other gotchas are lurking in that mess of proprietary code that's been the base of it since the 90's?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30975622</id>
	<title>Shareholders protecting their Micro$oft shares...</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1264944000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Duh.
The importance of protecting profit overrides the importance of admitting software is insecure (anything Micro$oft).
Vacca, vacca, vacca, feoda vacca.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh .
The importance of protecting profit overrides the importance of admitting software is insecure ( anything Micro $ oft ) .
Vacca , vacca , vacca , feoda vacca .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh.
The importance of protecting profit overrides the importance of admitting software is insecure (anything Micro$oft).
Vacca, vacca, vacca, feoda vacca.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969536</id>
	<title>Are these the same people....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264943220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are these the same people who said IRAQ was full of WMDs and terrorists?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are these the same people who said IRAQ was full of WMDs and terrorists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are these the same people who said IRAQ was full of WMDs and terrorists?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30973468</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264931220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the context of the UK government, "There is no Evidence" often means "We haven't actually looked for evidence yet".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the context of the UK government , " There is no Evidence " often means " We have n't actually looked for evidence yet " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the context of the UK government, "There is no Evidence" often means "We haven't actually looked for evidence yet".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969892</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264948380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext> Well, there's a couple things going on there. Other vendors actually patch flaws rather than just adding them to the errata because they didn't feel like fixing them. Sure they don't fix all of them, but things which aren't fixed are far less likely to come back and bite the user or require changes to the code base which aren't reasonable on the current revision. But they do get fixed or some how addressed in future versions.<br> <br>

The other thing is that other vendors actually acknowledge when there's a vulnerability which they can't patch post haste which makes it seem like they've got more bugs since they don't have a secret list of unpatched vulnerabilities. Nor do many of them have the option of dong so. Sunshine is the best disinfectant after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there 's a couple things going on there .
Other vendors actually patch flaws rather than just adding them to the errata because they did n't feel like fixing them .
Sure they do n't fix all of them , but things which are n't fixed are far less likely to come back and bite the user or require changes to the code base which are n't reasonable on the current revision .
But they do get fixed or some how addressed in future versions .
The other thing is that other vendors actually acknowledge when there 's a vulnerability which they ca n't patch post haste which makes it seem like they 've got more bugs since they do n't have a secret list of unpatched vulnerabilities .
Nor do many of them have the option of dong so .
Sunshine is the best disinfectant after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Well, there's a couple things going on there.
Other vendors actually patch flaws rather than just adding them to the errata because they didn't feel like fixing them.
Sure they don't fix all of them, but things which aren't fixed are far less likely to come back and bite the user or require changes to the code base which aren't reasonable on the current revision.
But they do get fixed or some how addressed in future versions.
The other thing is that other vendors actually acknowledge when there's a vulnerability which they can't patch post haste which makes it seem like they've got more bugs since they don't have a secret list of unpatched vulnerabilities.
Nor do many of them have the option of dong so.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971856</id>
	<title>I agree 100\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ignore the evidence there is no evidence. Arent rose colored glasses great?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ignore the evidence there is no evidence .
Arent rose colored glasses great ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ignore the evidence there is no evidence.
Arent rose colored glasses great?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969594</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until we run out of shelves, then we table them until the table is cluttered, and then we floor them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until we run out of shelves , then we table them until the table is cluttered , and then we floor them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until we run out of shelves, then we table them until the table is cluttered, and then we floor them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969512</id>
	<title>This just in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264942800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UK Gov't Says "No Evidence" condoms lower the risk of pregnancy and STD transmission</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UK Gov't Says " No Evidence " condoms lower the risk of pregnancy and STD transmission</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UK Gov't Says "No Evidence" condoms lower the risk of pregnancy and STD transmission</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969602</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other countries don't play poker, apparently -- but even in that game winning is accomplished by putting card on the table and demonstrating which card one has.</p><p>I think American English use is misguided.</p><p>But then, I'm biased, I think the entire English language is braindamaged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other countries do n't play poker , apparently -- but even in that game winning is accomplished by putting card on the table and demonstrating which card one has.I think American English use is misguided.But then , I 'm biased , I think the entire English language is braindamaged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other countries don't play poker, apparently -- but even in that game winning is accomplished by putting card on the table and demonstrating which card one has.I think American English use is misguided.But then, I'm biased, I think the entire English language is braindamaged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972970</id>
	<title>Who else has a managed solution?</title>
	<author>TheRedDuke</author>
	<datestamp>1264971540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Answer: no one. Microsoft has the only browser that can be centrally managed by an organization trying to remove the weak link of the end-user out of the equation. I'm not trying to say that IE on its own is safer than Firefox or Chrome or the rest. I'm also not saying that Joe Everyman has an enterprise backend managing his IE hotfixes. But if you're a business running Windows on workstations, there's no reason not to manage your IE hotfixes with WSUS and/or GPO's. At the very least, I'd argue that it's safer for the business/government/academic world, where AD dominates the backend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Answer : no one .
Microsoft has the only browser that can be centrally managed by an organization trying to remove the weak link of the end-user out of the equation .
I 'm not trying to say that IE on its own is safer than Firefox or Chrome or the rest .
I 'm also not saying that Joe Everyman has an enterprise backend managing his IE hotfixes .
But if you 're a business running Windows on workstations , there 's no reason not to manage your IE hotfixes with WSUS and/or GPO 's .
At the very least , I 'd argue that it 's safer for the business/government/academic world , where AD dominates the backend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Answer: no one.
Microsoft has the only browser that can be centrally managed by an organization trying to remove the weak link of the end-user out of the equation.
I'm not trying to say that IE on its own is safer than Firefox or Chrome or the rest.
I'm also not saying that Joe Everyman has an enterprise backend managing his IE hotfixes.
But if you're a business running Windows on workstations, there's no reason not to manage your IE hotfixes with WSUS and/or GPO's.
At the very least, I'd argue that it's safer for the business/government/academic world, where AD dominates the backend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971682</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1264964220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe it might have to do with the US Congress.<br>
If you bring up an item for vote, it might well be passed.  But if you can table an item, putting it aside for further debate, you may be able to kill it by effectively preventing it from being considered for a vote before that session of Congress ends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe it might have to do with the US Congress .
If you bring up an item for vote , it might well be passed .
But if you can table an item , putting it aside for further debate , you may be able to kill it by effectively preventing it from being considered for a vote before that session of Congress ends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe it might have to do with the US Congress.
If you bring up an item for vote, it might well be passed.
But if you can table an item, putting it aside for further debate, you may be able to kill it by effectively preventing it from being considered for a vote before that session of Congress ends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971832</id>
	<title>Re:Probably true, even.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the others have said, it's probably one or more of your plugins.</p><p>I had a severe performance problem after adding one plugin that cleared up as soon as I disabled it.<br>After running firefox for days, with 10 open tabs at this moment, the memory footprint is now: 166,500 K.  (win7)</p><p>My plugins are:<br>Adblock<br>Noscript<br>WOT<br>BetterPrivacy<br>Cooliris<br>DownloadHelper<br>Skipscreen<br>TheCamelizer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the others have said , it 's probably one or more of your plugins.I had a severe performance problem after adding one plugin that cleared up as soon as I disabled it.After running firefox for days , with 10 open tabs at this moment , the memory footprint is now : 166,500 K. ( win7 ) My plugins are : AdblockNoscriptWOTBetterPrivacyCoolirisDownloadHelperSkipscreenTheCamelizer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the others have said, it's probably one or more of your plugins.I had a severe performance problem after adding one plugin that cleared up as soon as I disabled it.After running firefox for days, with 10 open tabs at this moment, the memory footprint is now: 166,500 K.  (win7)My plugins are:AdblockNoscriptWOTBetterPrivacyCoolirisDownloadHelperSkipscreenTheCamelizer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972802</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1264970580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Until we run out of shelves, then we table them until the table is cluttered, and then we floor them.</p></div><p>
And back when I had a 21" CRT on my desk, I also had a place to monitor documents as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until we run out of shelves , then we table them until the table is cluttered , and then we floor them .
And back when I had a 21 " CRT on my desk , I also had a place to monitor documents as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until we run out of shelves, then we table them until the table is cluttered, and then we floor them.
And back when I had a 21" CRT on my desk, I also had a place to monitor documents as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972076</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1264966620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in America shelving also means to remove it from current consideration - hence all the source-control systems use 'shelving' to mean 'store it away somewhere and I'll come back to it later'.</p><p>I think the Americans are using 'to table' as a shorthand colliquary term for 'take it off the table'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in America shelving also means to remove it from current consideration - hence all the source-control systems use 'shelving ' to mean 'store it away somewhere and I 'll come back to it later'.I think the Americans are using 'to table ' as a shorthand colliquary term for 'take it off the table' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in America shelving also means to remove it from current consideration - hence all the source-control systems use 'shelving' to mean 'store it away somewhere and I'll come back to it later'.I think the Americans are using 'to table' as a shorthand colliquary term for 'take it off the table'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969584</id>
	<title>Re:IE (on Windows) is safer than Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264943820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are currently 23 unpatched advisories for IE 6.x http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/<br>There are currently 10 unpatched advisories for IE 7.x http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/<br>There are currently 3 unpatched advisories for IE 8.x http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/</p><p>Advisories often contain multiple vulnerabilities.  Doing a little quick math, that comes out to around 59 vulnerabilities (not an exact number, just a ballpark estimate) for those 3 versions of IE</p><p>This is compared to 0 unpatched advisories for the 3.x line (19 months old, now) and 3 unpatched advisories for the 2.x line.  http://secunia.com/advisories/vendor/18/</p><p>Mozilla also generally gets their patches out faster than Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are currently 23 unpatched advisories for IE 6.x http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/11/There are currently 10 unpatched advisories for IE 7.x http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/11/There are currently 3 unpatched advisories for IE 8.x http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/11/Advisories often contain multiple vulnerabilities .
Doing a little quick math , that comes out to around 59 vulnerabilities ( not an exact number , just a ballpark estimate ) for those 3 versions of IEThis is compared to 0 unpatched advisories for the 3.x line ( 19 months old , now ) and 3 unpatched advisories for the 2.x line .
http : //secunia.com/advisories/vendor/18/Mozilla also generally gets their patches out faster than Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are currently 23 unpatched advisories for IE 6.x http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/There are currently 10 unpatched advisories for IE 7.x http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/There are currently 3 unpatched advisories for IE 8.x http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/Advisories often contain multiple vulnerabilities.
Doing a little quick math, that comes out to around 59 vulnerabilities (not an exact number, just a ballpark estimate) for those 3 versions of IEThis is compared to 0 unpatched advisories for the 3.x line (19 months old, now) and 3 unpatched advisories for the 2.x line.
http://secunia.com/advisories/vendor/18/Mozilla also generally gets their patches out faster than Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969428</id>
	<title>Internet Explorer is safe for them...</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1264941900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would the cubicle spooks at the  UK Government Communications Headquarters do without MS?<br>
They would have to learn to hack real operating systems and would have messy logs to correct everytime.<br>
No more UFO hunters with perl scripts.<br>
Forward intelligence teams and community policing with their 'sneak and peek' anti gang, eco and domestic terrorist operations.<br>
All the ex spooks selling back MS cracks, ip loggers, websites, tools with polished gui's at dreamy consulting fees.<br>
Then you have the bureaucrat with a rolodex who wants to get into the private sector.  First rule, dont burn the US monopolies.<br>
Add to that the 30 something point and click MS tech clones advising the MP's.<br>
MS has many friends around the world who love sloppy networked computing.<br>
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would the cubicle spooks at the UK Government Communications Headquarters do without MS ?
They would have to learn to hack real operating systems and would have messy logs to correct everytime .
No more UFO hunters with perl scripts .
Forward intelligence teams and community policing with their 'sneak and peek ' anti gang , eco and domestic terrorist operations .
All the ex spooks selling back MS cracks , ip loggers , websites , tools with polished gui 's at dreamy consulting fees .
Then you have the bureaucrat with a rolodex who wants to get into the private sector .
First rule , dont burn the US monopolies .
Add to that the 30 something point and click MS tech clones advising the MP 's .
MS has many friends around the world who love sloppy networked computing .
Never believe anything until it 's been officially denied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would the cubicle spooks at the  UK Government Communications Headquarters do without MS?
They would have to learn to hack real operating systems and would have messy logs to correct everytime.
No more UFO hunters with perl scripts.
Forward intelligence teams and community policing with their 'sneak and peek' anti gang, eco and domestic terrorist operations.
All the ex spooks selling back MS cracks, ip loggers, websites, tools with polished gui's at dreamy consulting fees.
Then you have the bureaucrat with a rolodex who wants to get into the private sector.
First rule, dont burn the US monopolies.
Add to that the 30 something point and click MS tech clones advising the MP's.
MS has many friends around the world who love sloppy networked computing.
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969350</id>
	<title>And yet, they found evidences of WEAPONS in IRAQ</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1264940880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969550</id>
	<title>This is why...</title>
	<author>lattyware</author>
	<datestamp>1264943400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fucking hate our government. Seriously. They just all appear compeltely incompetent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fucking hate our government .
Seriously. They just all appear compeltely incompetent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fucking hate our government.
Seriously. They just all appear compeltely incompetent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971484</id>
	<title>Re:in case any other Americans are confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264962780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, indeed you are correct.</p><p>UK: To place an item on the agenda for discussion.<br>US: To remove the item from consideration.</p><p>In the UK we shelve discussion items when they are removed from consideration.</p></div><p>Really?  I'm from New York and I always used it the 'UK' way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , indeed you are correct.UK : To place an item on the agenda for discussion.US : To remove the item from consideration.In the UK we shelve discussion items when they are removed from consideration.Really ?
I 'm from New York and I always used it the 'UK ' way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, indeed you are correct.UK: To place an item on the agenda for discussion.US: To remove the item from consideration.In the UK we shelve discussion items when they are removed from consideration.Really?
I'm from New York and I always used it the 'UK' way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969404</id>
	<title>follow up questions should be asked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While user stupidity remains a large factor in security breaches, Microsoft's products are the products which allow for the most user stupidity - and everything which is supposed to prevent that, is broken by design.</p><p>So, question remains: why is the UK government still using software which is broken by design?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While user stupidity remains a large factor in security breaches , Microsoft 's products are the products which allow for the most user stupidity - and everything which is supposed to prevent that , is broken by design.So , question remains : why is the UK government still using software which is broken by design ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While user stupidity remains a large factor in security breaches, Microsoft's products are the products which allow for the most user stupidity - and everything which is supposed to prevent that, is broken by design.So, question remains: why is the UK government still using software which is broken by design?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30986714</id>
	<title>Here is the Missing Evidence</title>
	<author>lcreech</author>
	<datestamp>1265018040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A reply from Walter Snow</p><p>"Apple's issued a update to fix a security hole in the fundamental Internet SSL/TSL protocol. There is a SERIOUS problem in the TLS (Transport Layer Security) part of this protocol. The problem is NOT an implementation issue, but a TSL protocol DEFINITION issue.</p><p>This SSL/TSL protocol definition issue allows a hacker to become a "man-in-the-middle" who can view and modify all SSL communications between a secure browser client and a secure server. Everyone using the Internet is going to have to address this problem, because all internet financial transactions use the SSL protocol, and the protocol itself must be changed to prevent something called "TLS renegotiation" or else no financial transaction on the Internet is secure or safe. Every software vendor will have to supply a "no-renegotiation" patch for their implementation of SSL, every user browser will also have to be patched, and every business will have to apply the appropriate patch all their servers. Until this is done, any attempt to buy, sell, or move money on the Internet is not secure - and therefore not safe.</p><p>This SSL/TSL protocol security gap has been public knowledge ever since 11/05/2009, when it leaked out to the press in the wake of the Iranian government's hack of Twitter, though it had been known to Carnegie Mellon and the Federal US-CERT even earlier (August of 2009). The problem is reported on the Carnegie Mellon CERT  and Federal Cybersecurity US-CERT web sites as VU#120541.Software vendors were officially notified of the problem by US-CERT on 11/05/2009.</p><p>More of this here: <a href="http://www.phonefactor.com/sslgap/" title="phonefactor.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.phonefactor.com/sslgap/</a> [phonefactor.com] and here <a href="http://www.phonefactor.com/blog/implications-twitter-attack-ssl-gap.php" title="phonefactor.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.phonefactor.com/blog/implications-twitter-attack-ssl-gap.php</a> [phonefactor.com] by the group that first discovered it last August. Or Google VU#120541 and read the posts.</p><p>But here is the kicker - even though it has been known publicly since 11/05/2009, and many responsible vendors like Apple have provided patches for their software, MICROSOFT HAS APPARENTLY NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS VULNERABILITY EVEN EXISTS IN THEIR SOFTWARE. They have not provided a patch, nor have they indicated they are even working on a patch. I found nothing about the problem on the MSDN website except a few user questions about it on community bulletin boards that were NOT responded to (by Microsoft). I found is nothing on Microsoft TechNet either. And of course nothing in any Microsoft Security Bulletins."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A reply from Walter Snow " Apple 's issued a update to fix a security hole in the fundamental Internet SSL/TSL protocol .
There is a SERIOUS problem in the TLS ( Transport Layer Security ) part of this protocol .
The problem is NOT an implementation issue , but a TSL protocol DEFINITION issue.This SSL/TSL protocol definition issue allows a hacker to become a " man-in-the-middle " who can view and modify all SSL communications between a secure browser client and a secure server .
Everyone using the Internet is going to have to address this problem , because all internet financial transactions use the SSL protocol , and the protocol itself must be changed to prevent something called " TLS renegotiation " or else no financial transaction on the Internet is secure or safe .
Every software vendor will have to supply a " no-renegotiation " patch for their implementation of SSL , every user browser will also have to be patched , and every business will have to apply the appropriate patch all their servers .
Until this is done , any attempt to buy , sell , or move money on the Internet is not secure - and therefore not safe.This SSL/TSL protocol security gap has been public knowledge ever since 11/05/2009 , when it leaked out to the press in the wake of the Iranian government 's hack of Twitter , though it had been known to Carnegie Mellon and the Federal US-CERT even earlier ( August of 2009 ) .
The problem is reported on the Carnegie Mellon CERT and Federal Cybersecurity US-CERT web sites as VU # 120541.Software vendors were officially notified of the problem by US-CERT on 11/05/2009.More of this here : http : //www.phonefactor.com/sslgap/ [ phonefactor.com ] and here http : //www.phonefactor.com/blog/implications-twitter-attack-ssl-gap.php [ phonefactor.com ] by the group that first discovered it last August .
Or Google VU # 120541 and read the posts.But here is the kicker - even though it has been known publicly since 11/05/2009 , and many responsible vendors like Apple have provided patches for their software , MICROSOFT HAS APPARENTLY NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS VULNERABILITY EVEN EXISTS IN THEIR SOFTWARE .
They have not provided a patch , nor have they indicated they are even working on a patch .
I found nothing about the problem on the MSDN website except a few user questions about it on community bulletin boards that were NOT responded to ( by Microsoft ) .
I found is nothing on Microsoft TechNet either .
And of course nothing in any Microsoft Security Bulletins .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A reply from Walter Snow"Apple's issued a update to fix a security hole in the fundamental Internet SSL/TSL protocol.
There is a SERIOUS problem in the TLS (Transport Layer Security) part of this protocol.
The problem is NOT an implementation issue, but a TSL protocol DEFINITION issue.This SSL/TSL protocol definition issue allows a hacker to become a "man-in-the-middle" who can view and modify all SSL communications between a secure browser client and a secure server.
Everyone using the Internet is going to have to address this problem, because all internet financial transactions use the SSL protocol, and the protocol itself must be changed to prevent something called "TLS renegotiation" or else no financial transaction on the Internet is secure or safe.
Every software vendor will have to supply a "no-renegotiation" patch for their implementation of SSL, every user browser will also have to be patched, and every business will have to apply the appropriate patch all their servers.
Until this is done, any attempt to buy, sell, or move money on the Internet is not secure - and therefore not safe.This SSL/TSL protocol security gap has been public knowledge ever since 11/05/2009, when it leaked out to the press in the wake of the Iranian government's hack of Twitter, though it had been known to Carnegie Mellon and the Federal US-CERT even earlier (August of 2009).
The problem is reported on the Carnegie Mellon CERT  and Federal Cybersecurity US-CERT web sites as VU#120541.Software vendors were officially notified of the problem by US-CERT on 11/05/2009.More of this here: http://www.phonefactor.com/sslgap/ [phonefactor.com] and here http://www.phonefactor.com/blog/implications-twitter-attack-ssl-gap.php [phonefactor.com] by the group that first discovered it last August.
Or Google VU#120541 and read the posts.But here is the kicker - even though it has been known publicly since 11/05/2009, and many responsible vendors like Apple have provided patches for their software, MICROSOFT HAS APPARENTLY NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS VULNERABILITY EVEN EXISTS IN THEIR SOFTWARE.
They have not provided a patch, nor have they indicated they are even working on a patch.
I found nothing about the problem on the MSDN website except a few user questions about it on community bulletin boards that were NOT responded to (by Microsoft).
I found is nothing on Microsoft TechNet either.
And of course nothing in any Microsoft Security Bulletins.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30974388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30979068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30976146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30975184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30976864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30982638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_0424240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30975184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969592
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969804
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969764
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969814
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969348
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30972156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30982638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30974388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30979068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30976146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30970128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30976864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_0424240.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30969536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_0424240.30971648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
