<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_1735210</id>
	<title>Anti-Piracy Windows 7 Update Phones Home Quarterly</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265910840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Lauren Weinstein sends in news of a <a href="http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html">major and disturbing Microsoft anti-piracy initiative</a> called Windows Activation Technologies, or WAT. Here is <a href="http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/genuinewindows/archive/2010/02/11/windows-activation-technologies-update-for-windows-7.aspx">Microsoft's blog post</a> giving their perspective on what WAT is for. From Lauren's blog: <i>"The release of Windows 7 'Update for Microsoft Windows (KB71033)' will change the current activation and anti-piracy behavior of Windows 7 by triggering automatic 'phone home' operations over the Internet to Microsoft servers, typically for now at intervals of around 90 days. ... These automatic queries will repeatedly &mdash; apparently for as long as Windows is installed &mdash; validate your Windows 7 system against Microsoft's latest database of pirated system signatures (currently including more than 70 activation exploits known to Microsoft). If your system matches &mdash; again even if up to that time (which could be months or even years since you obtained the system) it had been declared to be genuine &mdash; then your system will be 'downgraded' to 'non-genuine' status until you take steps to obtain what Microsoft considers to be an authentic, validated, Windows 7 license. ... KB<strong>9</strong>71033... is scheduled to deploy to the manual downloading 'Genuine Microsoft Software' site on February 16, and start pushing out automatically through the Windows Update environment on February 23. ... [F]or Microsoft to assert that they have the right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner &mdash; declaring their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time &mdash; is rather staggering."</i> <b>Update: 02/12 02:08 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://slashdot.org/~kdawson/">KD</a> </b>: Corrected the Microsoft Knowledge Base number to include a leading 9 that had been omitted in the pre-announcement, per L. Weinstein.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lauren Weinstein sends in news of a major and disturbing Microsoft anti-piracy initiative called Windows Activation Technologies , or WAT .
Here is Microsoft 's blog post giving their perspective on what WAT is for .
From Lauren 's blog : " The release of Windows 7 'Update for Microsoft Windows ( KB71033 ) ' will change the current activation and anti-piracy behavior of Windows 7 by triggering automatic 'phone home ' operations over the Internet to Microsoft servers , typically for now at intervals of around 90 days .
... These automatic queries will repeatedly    apparently for as long as Windows is installed    validate your Windows 7 system against Microsoft 's latest database of pirated system signatures ( currently including more than 70 activation exploits known to Microsoft ) .
If your system matches    again even if up to that time ( which could be months or even years since you obtained the system ) it had been declared to be genuine    then your system will be 'downgraded ' to 'non-genuine ' status until you take steps to obtain what Microsoft considers to be an authentic , validated , Windows 7 license .
... KB971033... is scheduled to deploy to the manual downloading 'Genuine Microsoft Software ' site on February 16 , and start pushing out automatically through the Windows Update environment on February 23 .
... [ F ] or Microsoft to assert that they have the right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner    declaring their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time    is rather staggering .
" Update : 02/12 02 : 08 GMT by KD : Corrected the Microsoft Knowledge Base number to include a leading 9 that had been omitted in the pre-announcement , per L. Weinstein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lauren Weinstein sends in news of a major and disturbing Microsoft anti-piracy initiative called Windows Activation Technologies, or WAT.
Here is Microsoft's blog post giving their perspective on what WAT is for.
From Lauren's blog: "The release of Windows 7 'Update for Microsoft Windows (KB71033)' will change the current activation and anti-piracy behavior of Windows 7 by triggering automatic 'phone home' operations over the Internet to Microsoft servers, typically for now at intervals of around 90 days.
... These automatic queries will repeatedly — apparently for as long as Windows is installed — validate your Windows 7 system against Microsoft's latest database of pirated system signatures (currently including more than 70 activation exploits known to Microsoft).
If your system matches — again even if up to that time (which could be months or even years since you obtained the system) it had been declared to be genuine — then your system will be 'downgraded' to 'non-genuine' status until you take steps to obtain what Microsoft considers to be an authentic, validated, Windows 7 license.
... KB971033... is scheduled to deploy to the manual downloading 'Genuine Microsoft Software' site on February 16, and start pushing out automatically through the Windows Update environment on February 23.
... [F]or Microsoft to assert that they have the right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner — declaring their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time — is rather staggering.
" Update: 02/12 02:08 GMT by  KD : Corrected the Microsoft Knowledge Base number to include a leading 9 that had been omitted in the pre-announcement, per L. Weinstein.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102362</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. does this mean it does not auto install if you have auto update enabled ?<br>2. so it wont stop working or change the background to black ?<br>3. does this mean it wont detect existing or future pirate keys which overlap genuine installation keys as non genuine ?<br>4. good. so it wont have the problem listed in 3 above ?<br>5. sure. so no IP is recorded on your server, right ?<br>6. so enterprise customers running non genuine software are immune from the effects of running pirated copies ? how so, if the stated goal is as shown in 4, can you explain this ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. does this mean it does not auto install if you have auto update enabled ? 2 .
so it wont stop working or change the background to black ? 3 .
does this mean it wont detect existing or future pirate keys which overlap genuine installation keys as non genuine ? 4 .
good. so it wont have the problem listed in 3 above ? 5 .
sure. so no IP is recorded on your server , right ? 6 .
so enterprise customers running non genuine software are immune from the effects of running pirated copies ?
how so , if the stated goal is as shown in 4 , can you explain this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. does this mean it does not auto install if you have auto update enabled ?2.
so it wont stop working or change the background to black ?3.
does this mean it wont detect existing or future pirate keys which overlap genuine installation keys as non genuine ?4.
good. so it wont have the problem listed in 3 above ?5.
sure. so no IP is recorded on your server, right ?6.
so enterprise customers running non genuine software are immune from the effects of running pirated copies ?
how so, if the stated goal is as shown in 4, can you explain this ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102454</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>d3ac0n</author>
	<datestamp>1265917140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1. Voluntary patch</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, I'm glad to see that.  I am using a genuine copy, but I will still make sure NOT to install this as I don't want to be nagged for no good reason once my Key shows up in a keygen.  (And it will, the keygen guys are good.)</p><p>Of course, making it optional completely invalidates the reason for even DOING this, as now that this news is out anyone with half a brain will simply skip this update and not ever install it.</p><p>So this entire thing is nothing more than a masturbatory exercise for someone at Microsoft.</p><p>Lovely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Voluntary patchWell , I 'm glad to see that .
I am using a genuine copy , but I will still make sure NOT to install this as I do n't want to be nagged for no good reason once my Key shows up in a keygen .
( And it will , the keygen guys are good .
) Of course , making it optional completely invalidates the reason for even DOING this , as now that this news is out anyone with half a brain will simply skip this update and not ever install it.So this entire thing is nothing more than a masturbatory exercise for someone at Microsoft.Lovely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Voluntary patchWell, I'm glad to see that.
I am using a genuine copy, but I will still make sure NOT to install this as I don't want to be nagged for no good reason once my Key shows up in a keygen.
(And it will, the keygen guys are good.
)Of course, making it optional completely invalidates the reason for even DOING this, as now that this news is out anyone with half a brain will simply skip this update and not ever install it.So this entire thing is nothing more than a masturbatory exercise for someone at Microsoft.Lovely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101996</id>
	<title>What if MS go bust?</title>
	<author>15Bit</author>
	<datestamp>1265915640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happens to the authentication if MS goes out of business? <p> Ok, so its an unlikely scenario, but having someone as big as MS do this will set the trend for web based authentication of everything. How many small companies are going to follow this lead, forcing regular security checks down the throats of customers on the basis that it is an "Industry Standard" way of doing things. And how many of those are going to go bust in a year or two, leaving customers up s**t creak with no method of propulsion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens to the authentication if MS goes out of business ?
Ok , so its an unlikely scenario , but having someone as big as MS do this will set the trend for web based authentication of everything .
How many small companies are going to follow this lead , forcing regular security checks down the throats of customers on the basis that it is an " Industry Standard " way of doing things .
And how many of those are going to go bust in a year or two , leaving customers up s * * t creak with no method of propulsion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens to the authentication if MS goes out of business?
Ok, so its an unlikely scenario, but having someone as big as MS do this will set the trend for web based authentication of everything.
How many small companies are going to follow this lead, forcing regular security checks down the throats of customers on the basis that it is an "Industry Standard" way of doing things.
And how many of those are going to go bust in a year or two, leaving customers up s**t creak with no method of propulsion?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104054</id>
	<title>End of life</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1265879460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens when MS stop supporting windows 7 and turn the activation servers off?<br>Does that mean it will become useless 90 days afterwards?</p><p>What about for machines which aren't networked, or are on isolated networks which can't or aren't allowed to access the internet?</p><p>If they provide a corporate version which doesn't need to phone home, then pirates will simply pirate that instead, just like they did with the corporate versions of xp that didn't need activation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when MS stop supporting windows 7 and turn the activation servers off ? Does that mean it will become useless 90 days afterwards ? What about for machines which are n't networked , or are on isolated networks which ca n't or are n't allowed to access the internet ? If they provide a corporate version which does n't need to phone home , then pirates will simply pirate that instead , just like they did with the corporate versions of xp that did n't need activation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when MS stop supporting windows 7 and turn the activation servers off?Does that mean it will become useless 90 days afterwards?What about for machines which aren't networked, or are on isolated networks which can't or aren't allowed to access the internet?If they provide a corporate version which doesn't need to phone home, then pirates will simply pirate that instead, just like they did with the corporate versions of xp that didn't need activation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31111852</id>
	<title>Re:Not affected.</title>
	<author>JCZwart</author>
	<datestamp>1265983980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except when you want to play the newest games demanding DX11 they don't...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except when you want to play the newest games demanding DX11 they do n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except when you want to play the newest games demanding DX11 they don't...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103510</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265920620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1. Voluntary patch</p></div></blockquote><p>For millions of computer users that just auto-update or "click to download updates" and install blindly (read: your average home user that actually does updates), it is NOT VOLUNTARY, it's ACCIDENTAL.</p><blockquote><div><p>2. When non-genuine copies deteced, OS functionality is NOT reduced</p></div></blockquote><p>Annoying me on a repeated basis is reduced functionality, as it wastes my time.  UAC dialogs on Vista ringing any bells here?</p><blockquote><div><p>3. Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't argue against not using genuine software or paying license fees.  What I do have a beef with is me not being able to buy ONE COPY of the OS to use for all of my family's computers.  In the recording industry, they call that "fair use."</p><blockquote><div><p>4. The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, I highly doubt this.  The goal of WGA/WAT is to either minimize costs to Microsoft, maximize revenue streams, or both.  (That's what's known as a "business decision.")  If people are using pirated software with malicious code and Microsoft is getting support calls, doing this may reduce support costs.  What's more likely, however, is that it's being used as a revenue generator for a small revenue stream to pick up those allegedly "lost sales" from pirated software.</p><blockquote><div><p>5. No personally identifiable information is transmitted. Details on this can be found in ANY of our privacy policies which are standard across all Microsoft products.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's complete and utter crap.  Some form of the key I used to install the software is being transmitted, which, outside of volume licensing schemes, is unique.  Whether you like it or not, it uniquely identifies the machine that the request came from - and the user, with a court order, if required.</p><p>If your response is typical of a Microsoft employee, Microsoft is in far worse shape than Slashdot stories might suggest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Voluntary patchFor millions of computer users that just auto-update or " click to download updates " and install blindly ( read : your average home user that actually does updates ) , it is NOT VOLUNTARY , it 's ACCIDENTAL.2 .
When non-genuine copies deteced , OS functionality is NOT reducedAnnoying me on a repeated basis is reduced functionality , as it wastes my time .
UAC dialogs on Vista ringing any bells here ? 3 .
Yes , Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you 're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people do n't know they are.I do n't argue against not using genuine software or paying license fees .
What I do have a beef with is me not being able to buy ONE COPY of the OS to use for all of my family 's computers .
In the recording industry , they call that " fair use. " 4 .
The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.Oh , I highly doubt this .
The goal of WGA/WAT is to either minimize costs to Microsoft , maximize revenue streams , or both .
( That 's what 's known as a " business decision .
" ) If people are using pirated software with malicious code and Microsoft is getting support calls , doing this may reduce support costs .
What 's more likely , however , is that it 's being used as a revenue generator for a small revenue stream to pick up those allegedly " lost sales " from pirated software.5 .
No personally identifiable information is transmitted .
Details on this can be found in ANY of our privacy policies which are standard across all Microsoft products.That 's complete and utter crap .
Some form of the key I used to install the software is being transmitted , which , outside of volume licensing schemes , is unique .
Whether you like it or not , it uniquely identifies the machine that the request came from - and the user , with a court order , if required.If your response is typical of a Microsoft employee , Microsoft is in far worse shape than Slashdot stories might suggest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Voluntary patchFor millions of computer users that just auto-update or "click to download updates" and install blindly (read: your average home user that actually does updates), it is NOT VOLUNTARY, it's ACCIDENTAL.2.
When non-genuine copies deteced, OS functionality is NOT reducedAnnoying me on a repeated basis is reduced functionality, as it wastes my time.
UAC dialogs on Vista ringing any bells here?3.
Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.I don't argue against not using genuine software or paying license fees.
What I do have a beef with is me not being able to buy ONE COPY of the OS to use for all of my family's computers.
In the recording industry, they call that "fair use."4.
The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.Oh, I highly doubt this.
The goal of WGA/WAT is to either minimize costs to Microsoft, maximize revenue streams, or both.
(That's what's known as a "business decision.
")  If people are using pirated software with malicious code and Microsoft is getting support calls, doing this may reduce support costs.
What's more likely, however, is that it's being used as a revenue generator for a small revenue stream to pick up those allegedly "lost sales" from pirated software.5.
No personally identifiable information is transmitted.
Details on this can be found in ANY of our privacy policies which are standard across all Microsoft products.That's complete and utter crap.
Some form of the key I used to install the software is being transmitted, which, outside of volume licensing schemes, is unique.
Whether you like it or not, it uniquely identifies the machine that the request came from - and the user, with a court order, if required.If your response is typical of a Microsoft employee, Microsoft is in far worse shape than Slashdot stories might suggest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102316</id>
	<title>Re:Well that pretty much settles it for me.</title>
	<author>drdanny\_orig</author>
	<datestamp>1265916780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I read it, this doesn't apply to Home editions, does it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I read it , this does n't apply to Home editions , does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I read it, this doesn't apply to Home editions, does it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102478</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>gparent</author>
	<datestamp>1265917260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what happens if I'm not connected to the internet, ever? We do have machines like this at work, for security reasons. They also do not have WSUS hooked in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens if I 'm not connected to the internet , ever ?
We do have machines like this at work , for security reasons .
They also do not have WSUS hooked in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens if I'm not connected to the internet, ever?
We do have machines like this at work, for security reasons.
They also do not have WSUS hooked in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109234</id>
	<title>Re:Not news</title>
	<author>Volguus Zildrohar</author>
	<datestamp>1265906220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins.</p></div><p>At least they use some lube when they penetrate my anus - they could use a broken bottle!</p><p>Being a legitimate customer obviously has its upsides.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins.At least they use some lube when they penetrate my anus - they could use a broken bottle ! Being a legitimate customer obviously has its upsides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins.At least they use some lube when they penetrate my anus - they could use a broken bottle!Being a legitimate customer obviously has its upsides.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102680</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for a voice of reason among the linux zealots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for a voice of reason among the linux zealots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for a voice of reason among the linux zealots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101926</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;enter trapdoor<br>Yes, probably just as well to give up looking, and heaven knows there's enough packing to do, what with the rest of the family in uproar. Oh well.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <b>*** You have missed the point entirely ***</b></p><p>In that game you scored 0 out of a possible 550, in 3 turns, giving you the rank of hapless Tourist.</p><p>Would you like to RESTART, RESTORE a saved game, give the FULL score for that game or QUIT?<br>&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; enter trapdoorYes , probably just as well to give up looking , and heaven knows there 's enough packing to do , what with the rest of the family in uproar .
Oh well .
      * * * You have missed the point entirely * * * In that game you scored 0 out of a possible 550 , in 3 turns , giving you the rank of hapless Tourist.Would you like to RESTART , RESTORE a saved game , give the FULL score for that game or QUIT ? &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;enter trapdoorYes, probably just as well to give up looking, and heaven knows there's enough packing to do, what with the rest of the family in uproar.
Oh well.
      *** You have missed the point entirely ***In that game you scored 0 out of a possible 550, in 3 turns, giving you the rank of hapless Tourist.Would you like to RESTART, RESTORE a saved game, give the FULL score for that game or QUIT?&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107588</id>
	<title>Time to switch</title>
	<author>totalcaos</author>
	<datestamp>1265893740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the more reason to switch to linux!! Change or upgrade a component on the PC or laptop and it will revert back to a non-genuine status<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the more reason to switch to linux ! !
Change or upgrade a component on the PC or laptop and it will revert back to a non-genuine status ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the more reason to switch to linux!!
Change or upgrade a component on the PC or laptop and it will revert back to a non-genuine status ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102394</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>rjh</author>
	<datestamp>1265916960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for sharing this with us.  I imagine you're going to get flamed into oblivion for daring to question the party line about "OMG OMG M$ is evil!", but the sane nerds here appreciate the different perspective.</p><p>(For all the raving fanboys: I'm writing this on OS X, my home server runs FreeBSD, and I avoid Windows as much as possible.  I am not some astroturfer.  I just believe that everyone is better for hearing and considering different points of view.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for sharing this with us .
I imagine you 're going to get flamed into oblivion for daring to question the party line about " OMG OMG M $ is evil !
" , but the sane nerds here appreciate the different perspective .
( For all the raving fanboys : I 'm writing this on OS X , my home server runs FreeBSD , and I avoid Windows as much as possible .
I am not some astroturfer .
I just believe that everyone is better for hearing and considering different points of view .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for sharing this with us.
I imagine you're going to get flamed into oblivion for daring to question the party line about "OMG OMG M$ is evil!
", but the sane nerds here appreciate the different perspective.
(For all the raving fanboys: I'm writing this on OS X, my home server runs FreeBSD, and I avoid Windows as much as possible.
I am not some astroturfer.
I just believe that everyone is better for hearing and considering different points of view.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105272</id>
	<title>Dim Sum Microsoft Licenses</title>
	<author>handfullofsausage</author>
	<datestamp>1265884260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about all those pirated Chinese copies? Maybe the Chinese have the master key already?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about all those pirated Chinese copies ?
Maybe the Chinese have the master key already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about all those pirated Chinese copies?
Maybe the Chinese have the master key already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110008</id>
	<title>Re:The 1960s called...</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1265915760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the IBM 360 had an internal processor speed switch. if you were on a lease and wanted a faster machine, IBM would raise your monthly bill and have the technician flip the switch to increase the speed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the IBM 360 had an internal processor speed switch .
if you were on a lease and wanted a faster machine , IBM would raise your monthly bill and have the technician flip the switch to increase the speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the IBM 360 had an internal processor speed switch.
if you were on a lease and wanted a faster machine, IBM would raise your monthly bill and have the technician flip the switch to increase the speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102290</id>
	<title>It's only annoying legitimate users...</title>
	<author>synoniem</author>
	<datestamp>1265916720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because those who know to get hold of a working illegal copy of Windows 7 will soon find another crack to avoid WAT. But I can tell that whenever my paid Windows 7 is downgraded by a false positive I will remove it from my computer for ever. And because it is running in a virtual machine it is just "rm win7.vmdk".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because those who know to get hold of a working illegal copy of Windows 7 will soon find another crack to avoid WAT .
But I can tell that whenever my paid Windows 7 is downgraded by a false positive I will remove it from my computer for ever .
And because it is running in a virtual machine it is just " rm win7.vmdk " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because those who know to get hold of a working illegal copy of Windows 7 will soon find another crack to avoid WAT.
But I can tell that whenever my paid Windows 7 is downgraded by a false positive I will remove it from my computer for ever.
And because it is running in a virtual machine it is just "rm win7.vmdk".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103682</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1265921220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;I mean, they can basically disable/cripple anyone's computer for any reason without notice.

No, they can't.  They have no idea who you are or who has a specific license key.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I mean , they can basically disable/cripple anyone 's computer for any reason without notice .
No , they ca n't .
They have no idea who you are or who has a specific license key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I mean, they can basically disable/cripple anyone's computer for any reason without notice.
No, they can't.
They have no idea who you are or who has a specific license key.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102802</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I scrolled down looking for people who actually read the blog post. This is the first one I found and was by an MS employee. I guess if someone doesn't RTFA they can have a bit of conspiracy theory fun. But I would think there would be more people reading the thing to post here and show how "smart" they are by just reading the damn thing... like um... me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I scrolled down looking for people who actually read the blog post .
This is the first one I found and was by an MS employee .
I guess if someone does n't RTFA they can have a bit of conspiracy theory fun .
But I would think there would be more people reading the thing to post here and show how " smart " they are by just reading the damn thing... like um... me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I scrolled down looking for people who actually read the blog post.
This is the first one I found and was by an MS employee.
I guess if someone doesn't RTFA they can have a bit of conspiracy theory fun.
But I would think there would be more people reading the thing to post here and show how "smart" they are by just reading the damn thing... like um... me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102404</id>
	<title>It's been phoning home all along.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Every time I don't have an Internet connection,win7 informs me within a few minutes that I "may not be running a legitimate copy".  The link it provides to "resolve" this is a essentially a "buy win7 now" page. Without fail a few minutes after the Internet connection is restored, the warning goes away and the desktop watermark accusing me of piracy also disappears again.

</p><p>
I'm actually more than a little peeved about being called a thief every time I resume my session from suspend -- during the few seconds it takes to reconnect -- or use my laptop out of range of my wireless.  But my point is that if it wasn't phoning home, it wouldn't be telling me this *only* when there was no Internet connection; and it wouldn't stop telling me *only* when my connection was restored.
</p><p>
Of course, no matter how peeved I am - as long as it doesn't get in my way, it's not worth waiting on hold for 20 minutes of my life to get a solution which may or may not resolve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I do n't have an Internet connection,win7 informs me within a few minutes that I " may not be running a legitimate copy " .
The link it provides to " resolve " this is a essentially a " buy win7 now " page .
Without fail a few minutes after the Internet connection is restored , the warning goes away and the desktop watermark accusing me of piracy also disappears again .
I 'm actually more than a little peeved about being called a thief every time I resume my session from suspend -- during the few seconds it takes to reconnect -- or use my laptop out of range of my wireless .
But my point is that if it was n't phoning home , it would n't be telling me this * only * when there was no Internet connection ; and it would n't stop telling me * only * when my connection was restored .
Of course , no matter how peeved I am - as long as it does n't get in my way , it 's not worth waiting on hold for 20 minutes of my life to get a solution which may or may not resolve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Every time I don't have an Internet connection,win7 informs me within a few minutes that I "may not be running a legitimate copy".
The link it provides to "resolve" this is a essentially a "buy win7 now" page.
Without fail a few minutes after the Internet connection is restored, the warning goes away and the desktop watermark accusing me of piracy also disappears again.
I'm actually more than a little peeved about being called a thief every time I resume my session from suspend -- during the few seconds it takes to reconnect -- or use my laptop out of range of my wireless.
But my point is that if it wasn't phoning home, it wouldn't be telling me this *only* when there was no Internet connection; and it wouldn't stop telling me *only* when my connection was restored.
Of course, no matter how peeved I am - as long as it doesn't get in my way, it's not worth waiting on hold for 20 minutes of my life to get a solution which may or may not resolve it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110914</id>
	<title>127.0.0.1 local host</title>
	<author>NSN A392-99-964-5927</author>
	<datestamp>1265972520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just edit your hosts file C:/Windows/System32/Drivers/Etc/hosts and 127.0.0.1 add.checkin.servers.here</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just edit your hosts file C : /Windows/System32/Drivers/Etc/hosts and 127.0.0.1 add.checkin.servers.here</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just edit your hosts file C:/Windows/System32/Drivers/Etc/hosts and 127.0.0.1 add.checkin.servers.here</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102658</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice try you sandbagging fuck, how about you mix up some bleach and drain cleaner and end your shit life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice try you sandbagging fuck , how about you mix up some bleach and drain cleaner and end your shit life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice try you sandbagging fuck, how about you mix up some bleach and drain cleaner and end your shit life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102644</id>
	<title>Re:The 1960s called...</title>
	<author>secretcurse</author>
	<datestamp>1265917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In what way is this like charging per cycle?  MS isn't asking for more money every quarter from legitimate customers, they're trying to be a pain in the ass every 3 months to pirates.  If you own a legit license and you're tagged as a false positive, you call the 800 number and run through an automated prompt that takes about 5 minutes to have your machine up and running again.  Sure, that's annoying, but it's nothing like charging you for CPU cycles.  You're acting like they're monitoring your Task Manager and sending you a bill for how much "Windows" you're using, the way IBM used to charge for how much mainframe time you used...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In what way is this like charging per cycle ?
MS is n't asking for more money every quarter from legitimate customers , they 're trying to be a pain in the ass every 3 months to pirates .
If you own a legit license and you 're tagged as a false positive , you call the 800 number and run through an automated prompt that takes about 5 minutes to have your machine up and running again .
Sure , that 's annoying , but it 's nothing like charging you for CPU cycles .
You 're acting like they 're monitoring your Task Manager and sending you a bill for how much " Windows " you 're using , the way IBM used to charge for how much mainframe time you used.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what way is this like charging per cycle?
MS isn't asking for more money every quarter from legitimate customers, they're trying to be a pain in the ass every 3 months to pirates.
If you own a legit license and you're tagged as a false positive, you call the 800 number and run through an automated prompt that takes about 5 minutes to have your machine up and running again.
Sure, that's annoying, but it's nothing like charging you for CPU cycles.
You're acting like they're monitoring your Task Manager and sending you a bill for how much "Windows" you're using, the way IBM used to charge for how much mainframe time you used...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103568</id>
	<title>Re:Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265920800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Migrate to Macs. It'll be cheaper and easier in the long run with fewer headaches.</p><p>Why do small to mid-size companies need network authentication anyway? Think about it. Most people only use a single system. If it wasn't for the constant updates and configuration hassles of windows, it wouldn't need network authentication either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Migrate to Macs .
It 'll be cheaper and easier in the long run with fewer headaches.Why do small to mid-size companies need network authentication anyway ?
Think about it .
Most people only use a single system .
If it was n't for the constant updates and configuration hassles of windows , it would n't need network authentication either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Migrate to Macs.
It'll be cheaper and easier in the long run with fewer headaches.Why do small to mid-size companies need network authentication anyway?
Think about it.
Most people only use a single system.
If it wasn't for the constant updates and configuration hassles of windows, it wouldn't need network authentication either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102744</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1265917920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the additional info.  One thing I'm not clear on -- is this really new?  Since my clean install in November - I am getting told that my legit copy of Windows 7 is not valid every time I am not connected to the Internet.  Within 15-20 minutes of getting reconnected, the message clears up (and I have access to optional updates again).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the additional info .
One thing I 'm not clear on -- is this really new ?
Since my clean install in November - I am getting told that my legit copy of Windows 7 is not valid every time I am not connected to the Internet .
Within 15-20 minutes of getting reconnected , the message clears up ( and I have access to optional updates again ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the additional info.
One thing I'm not clear on -- is this really new?
Since my clean install in November - I am getting told that my legit copy of Windows 7 is not valid every time I am not connected to the Internet.
Within 15-20 minutes of getting reconnected, the message clears up (and I have access to optional updates again).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104014</id>
	<title>what WAT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here is Microsoft's blog post giving their perspective on what WAT is for.</p></div><p>Microsoft responded by saying: "in the butt."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is Microsoft 's blog post giving their perspective on what WAT is for.Microsoft responded by saying : " in the butt .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is Microsoft's blog post giving their perspective on what WAT is for.Microsoft responded by saying: "in the butt.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103036</id>
	<title>Slippery slope</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265918880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the initial move of Microsoft into renting Windows.  How long before Windows is no available for purchasing, only renting?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the initial move of Microsoft into renting Windows .
How long before Windows is no available for purchasing , only renting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the initial move of Microsoft into renting Windows.
How long before Windows is no available for purchasing, only renting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102892</id>
	<title>Re:Well that pretty much settles it for me.</title>
	<author>eihab</author>
	<datestamp>1265918400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I&rsquo;d like to stress that <strong>the Update is voluntary</strong>, which means that you can choose not to install it when you see it appear on Windows Update.</p></div><p>I'm running Windows 7 on my home workstation and on my new laptop (Ubuntu in VirtualBox).</p><p>This WAT thing is just stupid, all my Windows 7 installations are genuine so I don't see how they would become counterfeit in 3-6 or 9 months from now.</p><p>It's pointless and so I won't be installing it when it's offered via Windows update. Simple as that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article : I    d like to stress that the Update is voluntary , which means that you can choose not to install it when you see it appear on Windows Update.I 'm running Windows 7 on my home workstation and on my new laptop ( Ubuntu in VirtualBox ) .This WAT thing is just stupid , all my Windows 7 installations are genuine so I do n't see how they would become counterfeit in 3-6 or 9 months from now.It 's pointless and so I wo n't be installing it when it 's offered via Windows update .
Simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article:I’d like to stress that the Update is voluntary, which means that you can choose not to install it when you see it appear on Windows Update.I'm running Windows 7 on my home workstation and on my new laptop (Ubuntu in VirtualBox).This WAT thing is just stupid, all my Windows 7 installations are genuine so I don't see how they would become counterfeit in 3-6 or 9 months from now.It's pointless and so I won't be installing it when it's offered via Windows update.
Simple as that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806</id>
	<title>The 1960s called...</title>
	<author>wandazulu</author>
	<datestamp>1265914920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they want their mainframes back. This is not unlike IBM charging for use of their hardware and software on a <i>per cycle</i> basis. One of the people I worked with back in the 90s remembers earlier models of mainframes actually had mechanical car-like odometers that were read by a "meter reader" like the gas company, and IBM would send them a bill.</p><p>And it is a guarantee that enterprising individuals will come up with a solution to WAT as my former co-worker did; crack the box and reset the numbers. Not enough to arouse suspicion, but just enough that they wouldn't be charged for a huge end-of-month load on the processor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they want their mainframes back .
This is not unlike IBM charging for use of their hardware and software on a per cycle basis .
One of the people I worked with back in the 90s remembers earlier models of mainframes actually had mechanical car-like odometers that were read by a " meter reader " like the gas company , and IBM would send them a bill.And it is a guarantee that enterprising individuals will come up with a solution to WAT as my former co-worker did ; crack the box and reset the numbers .
Not enough to arouse suspicion , but just enough that they would n't be charged for a huge end-of-month load on the processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they want their mainframes back.
This is not unlike IBM charging for use of their hardware and software on a per cycle basis.
One of the people I worked with back in the 90s remembers earlier models of mainframes actually had mechanical car-like odometers that were read by a "meter reader" like the gas company, and IBM would send them a bill.And it is a guarantee that enterprising individuals will come up with a solution to WAT as my former co-worker did; crack the box and reset the numbers.
Not enough to arouse suspicion, but just enough that they wouldn't be charged for a huge end-of-month load on the processor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102490</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1265917260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft's definition of 'not reduced' is rather odd.  Directly from the article:</p><p>"The desktop wallpaper will be switched to a plain desktop (all of the customer&rsquo;s desktop icons, gadgets, or pinned applications stay in place). Periodic reminders and a persistent desktop watermark act as further alerts to the customer."</p><p>If the desktop wallpaper is not part of the OS functionality, why is it built into the OS?  By disabling that feature, you're reduced the functionality.</p><p>Also, periodic popups are a MAJOR annoyance.  That is also a reduction of functionality.</p><p>I understand that you are supposedly trying to help the poor folks that paid good money for a pirated copy of Windows.  1 single notice window would do that.  An icon on the start menu that performed the check at will would do that.</p><p>And let's be clear:  This will stop exactly zero pirates.  They will hack through this like a hot knife through butter.  It is utterly ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's definition of 'not reduced ' is rather odd .
Directly from the article : " The desktop wallpaper will be switched to a plain desktop ( all of the customer    s desktop icons , gadgets , or pinned applications stay in place ) .
Periodic reminders and a persistent desktop watermark act as further alerts to the customer .
" If the desktop wallpaper is not part of the OS functionality , why is it built into the OS ?
By disabling that feature , you 're reduced the functionality.Also , periodic popups are a MAJOR annoyance .
That is also a reduction of functionality.I understand that you are supposedly trying to help the poor folks that paid good money for a pirated copy of Windows .
1 single notice window would do that .
An icon on the start menu that performed the check at will would do that.And let 's be clear : This will stop exactly zero pirates .
They will hack through this like a hot knife through butter .
It is utterly ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's definition of 'not reduced' is rather odd.
Directly from the article:"The desktop wallpaper will be switched to a plain desktop (all of the customer’s desktop icons, gadgets, or pinned applications stay in place).
Periodic reminders and a persistent desktop watermark act as further alerts to the customer.
"If the desktop wallpaper is not part of the OS functionality, why is it built into the OS?
By disabling that feature, you're reduced the functionality.Also, periodic popups are a MAJOR annoyance.
That is also a reduction of functionality.I understand that you are supposedly trying to help the poor folks that paid good money for a pirated copy of Windows.
1 single notice window would do that.
An icon on the start menu that performed the check at will would do that.And let's be clear:  This will stop exactly zero pirates.
They will hack through this like a hot knife through butter.
It is utterly ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101886</id>
	<title>No internet?!?!?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what will happen if the consumer looses there internet for a few months? i think quite alot of people assume every house hold has some type of internet connection, but this isnt true as not all households can afford the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what will happen if the consumer looses there internet for a few months ?
i think quite alot of people assume every house hold has some type of internet connection , but this isnt true as not all households can afford the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what will happen if the consumer looses there internet for a few months?
i think quite alot of people assume every house hold has some type of internet connection, but this isnt true as not all households can afford the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102002</id>
	<title>Makes Sense</title>
	<author>dawilcox</author>
	<datestamp>1265915700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you use Windows, be prepared to succumb to the conditions of the company that produces it. This includes if the company that produces it wants to assure that you actually paid for the software you installed. If you are not all right with this, don't use Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use Windows , be prepared to succumb to the conditions of the company that produces it .
This includes if the company that produces it wants to assure that you actually paid for the software you installed .
If you are not all right with this , do n't use Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use Windows, be prepared to succumb to the conditions of the company that produces it.
This includes if the company that produces it wants to assure that you actually paid for the software you installed.
If you are not all right with this, don't use Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102436</id>
	<title>wow</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1265917140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i've been reading and posting here a long time, and i don't remember anyone coming right out and saying "microsoft employee here"</p><p>i never expected someone to rip off their clothes, douse themselves in a1 steak sauce, and walk into the hyena enclosure</p><p>you are very brave sir</p><p>how well read is slashdot at microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 've been reading and posting here a long time , and i do n't remember anyone coming right out and saying " microsoft employee here " i never expected someone to rip off their clothes , douse themselves in a1 steak sauce , and walk into the hyena enclosureyou are very brave sirhow well read is slashdot at microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i've been reading and posting here a long time, and i don't remember anyone coming right out and saying "microsoft employee here"i never expected someone to rip off their clothes, douse themselves in a1 steak sauce, and walk into the hyena enclosureyou are very brave sirhow well read is slashdot at microsoft?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104160</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. WGA was a voluntary patch for the same reasons.  Then it became mandatory.  You can't argue it is just because people don't know they have pirated copies now.<br>2. This is not any different in WGA.  Why the acronym change?  Is WGA going to be disabled?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
WGA was a voluntary patch for the same reasons .
Then it became mandatory .
You ca n't argue it is just because people do n't know they have pirated copies now.2 .
This is not any different in WGA .
Why the acronym change ?
Is WGA going to be disabled ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
WGA was a voluntary patch for the same reasons.
Then it became mandatory.
You can't argue it is just because people don't know they have pirated copies now.2.
This is not any different in WGA.
Why the acronym change?
Is WGA going to be disabled?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780</id>
	<title>Just going to annoy legit customers</title>
	<author>Alcimedes</author>
	<datestamp>1265914860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a machine, purchased by my employer that has to be validated against the key server at the office.</p><p>The machine however is at my house.  The only way to make it validate is to ensure that I'm connected to the VPN when it attempts to find its key.</p><p>Does this mean once a quarter (if I have this update) my machine will downgrade itself, make me hop on the VPN, revalidate etc.?</p><p>That's just damn annoying.  I'll probably end up cracking my legit install to stop this stupid behavior.  When the cracked version of your software is less obnoxious than the legitimate version you have a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a machine , purchased by my employer that has to be validated against the key server at the office.The machine however is at my house .
The only way to make it validate is to ensure that I 'm connected to the VPN when it attempts to find its key.Does this mean once a quarter ( if I have this update ) my machine will downgrade itself , make me hop on the VPN , revalidate etc .
? That 's just damn annoying .
I 'll probably end up cracking my legit install to stop this stupid behavior .
When the cracked version of your software is less obnoxious than the legitimate version you have a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a machine, purchased by my employer that has to be validated against the key server at the office.The machine however is at my house.
The only way to make it validate is to ensure that I'm connected to the VPN when it attempts to find its key.Does this mean once a quarter (if I have this update) my machine will downgrade itself, make me hop on the VPN, revalidate etc.
?That's just damn annoying.
I'll probably end up cracking my legit install to stop this stupid behavior.
When the cracked version of your software is less obnoxious than the legitimate version you have a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109440</id>
	<title>Lather Rinse Repeat</title>
	<author>rudy\_wayne</author>
	<datestamp>1265909040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since first releasing Windows XP almoss 9 years ago, Microsoft has repeatedly introduced new measures to combat "piracy", oblivious to the fact that each new measure is required because all previous measures have completely failed and typically are defeated within days (or hours) of being released.  What is that old sayng about "doing the same thing over and over but expecting to get different results"?</p><p>All the people on the Windows hacking/cracking/pirating boards are laughing at Microsoft's latest announcement, particularly the "more than 70 activation exploits known to Microsoft"  (hint:  there aren't nearly that many).  There is no reason to beleive that the latest attempt will be any more effective than their previous failures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since first releasing Windows XP almoss 9 years ago , Microsoft has repeatedly introduced new measures to combat " piracy " , oblivious to the fact that each new measure is required because all previous measures have completely failed and typically are defeated within days ( or hours ) of being released .
What is that old sayng about " doing the same thing over and over but expecting to get different results " ? All the people on the Windows hacking/cracking/pirating boards are laughing at Microsoft 's latest announcement , particularly the " more than 70 activation exploits known to Microsoft " ( hint : there are n't nearly that many ) .
There is no reason to beleive that the latest attempt will be any more effective than their previous failures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since first releasing Windows XP almoss 9 years ago, Microsoft has repeatedly introduced new measures to combat "piracy", oblivious to the fact that each new measure is required because all previous measures have completely failed and typically are defeated within days (or hours) of being released.
What is that old sayng about "doing the same thing over and over but expecting to get different results"?All the people on the Windows hacking/cracking/pirating boards are laughing at Microsoft's latest announcement, particularly the "more than 70 activation exploits known to Microsoft"  (hint:  there aren't nearly that many).
There is no reason to beleive that the latest attempt will be any more effective than their previous failures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105492</id>
	<title>Interesting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot folks are up in arms about this.</p><p>Neowin folks have no problem with MS dealing with pirates.</p><p>ArsTechnica folks are mixed.</p><p>---</p><p>I think this is why I hate almost every tech site but Ars. Very few people can have a balanced opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot folks are up in arms about this.Neowin folks have no problem with MS dealing with pirates.ArsTechnica folks are mixed.---I think this is why I hate almost every tech site but Ars .
Very few people can have a balanced opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot folks are up in arms about this.Neowin folks have no problem with MS dealing with pirates.ArsTechnica folks are mixed.---I think this is why I hate almost every tech site but Ars.
Very few people can have a balanced opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102944</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>PinkyGigglebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1265918580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104184</id>
	<title>And</title>
	<author>asamad</author>
	<datestamp>1265879880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what happens if you block access to the site after you have succeffuly authenticated, sounds like a job for the great china wall<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens if you block access to the site after you have succeffuly authenticated , sounds like a job for the great china wall : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens if you block access to the site after you have succeffuly authenticated, sounds like a job for the great china wall :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105606</id>
	<title>This is a good thing.</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1265885400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about time they did something about the millions of people using windows illegally.  They are all potential linux converts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time they did something about the millions of people using windows illegally .
They are all potential linux converts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time they did something about the millions of people using windows illegally.
They are all potential linux converts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103386</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>SpeedStreet</author>
	<datestamp>1265920140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Voluntary patch =&gt; Until its included in a rollup such as SP1.
2. Reduced Functionality =&gt; Maybe, but it can amount to reduced productivity when I have to take time out of my day to fix the issue.
3. Microsoft Annoying Me =&gt; If I am provided the option to click a button that says "Make sure my computer is genuine" then that should be enough.  I don't need a company telling me what is best for me.
4. Pirated Copies with Malicious Code =&gt; Blatant FUD.  There has never been any data to support this and it comes from the same fear-mongering that tells us open source is dangerous because everyone has access to the code.
5. No Personal Information =&gt; You are using my bandwidth and my CPU cycles to maintain your own company's livelihood.  Nor does using your software mean I should have to deliver any sort of anonymous statistics to you.
6. WSUS =&gt; So its ok to trust corporations but when it comes to the rights of the individual, we're SOL?

I'm actually a Microsoft fan, but WGA and WAT have been rubbing me the wrong way for years.  Had I not had "access" to Microsoft software in college to learn on, I wouldn't be in a position like I am today where I am responsible for a multi-million dollar IT budget that allows me to purchase Microsoft products.

Piracy is absolutely a necessary evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Voluntary patch = &gt; Until its included in a rollup such as SP1 .
2. Reduced Functionality = &gt; Maybe , but it can amount to reduced productivity when I have to take time out of my day to fix the issue .
3. Microsoft Annoying Me = &gt; If I am provided the option to click a button that says " Make sure my computer is genuine " then that should be enough .
I do n't need a company telling me what is best for me .
4. Pirated Copies with Malicious Code = &gt; Blatant FUD .
There has never been any data to support this and it comes from the same fear-mongering that tells us open source is dangerous because everyone has access to the code .
5. No Personal Information = &gt; You are using my bandwidth and my CPU cycles to maintain your own company 's livelihood .
Nor does using your software mean I should have to deliver any sort of anonymous statistics to you .
6. WSUS = &gt; So its ok to trust corporations but when it comes to the rights of the individual , we 're SOL ?
I 'm actually a Microsoft fan , but WGA and WAT have been rubbing me the wrong way for years .
Had I not had " access " to Microsoft software in college to learn on , I would n't be in a position like I am today where I am responsible for a multi-million dollar IT budget that allows me to purchase Microsoft products .
Piracy is absolutely a necessary evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Voluntary patch =&gt; Until its included in a rollup such as SP1.
2. Reduced Functionality =&gt; Maybe, but it can amount to reduced productivity when I have to take time out of my day to fix the issue.
3. Microsoft Annoying Me =&gt; If I am provided the option to click a button that says "Make sure my computer is genuine" then that should be enough.
I don't need a company telling me what is best for me.
4. Pirated Copies with Malicious Code =&gt; Blatant FUD.
There has never been any data to support this and it comes from the same fear-mongering that tells us open source is dangerous because everyone has access to the code.
5. No Personal Information =&gt; You are using my bandwidth and my CPU cycles to maintain your own company's livelihood.
Nor does using your software mean I should have to deliver any sort of anonymous statistics to you.
6. WSUS =&gt; So its ok to trust corporations but when it comes to the rights of the individual, we're SOL?
I'm actually a Microsoft fan, but WGA and WAT have been rubbing me the wrong way for years.
Had I not had "access" to Microsoft software in college to learn on, I wouldn't be in a position like I am today where I am responsible for a multi-million dollar IT budget that allows me to purchase Microsoft products.
Piracy is absolutely a necessary evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102778</id>
	<title>Today marks my first anniversary with Ubuntu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you, Bill, for providing me with this reminder that no matter how badly I curse X, no matter how rotten Linux NVIDIA support is, or how difficult it is to run games in Wine...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's still better than using the steaming pile of horseshit that is Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , Bill , for providing me with this reminder that no matter how badly I curse X , no matter how rotten Linux NVIDIA support is , or how difficult it is to run games in Wine... ... it 's still better than using the steaming pile of horseshit that is Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, Bill, for providing me with this reminder that no matter how badly I curse X, no matter how rotten Linux NVIDIA support is, or how difficult it is to run games in Wine... ... it's still better than using the steaming pile of horseshit that is Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102026</id>
	<title>Now THAT'S smart marketing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brilliant, give more people yet another reason to switch to Apple. WTG MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brilliant , give more people yet another reason to switch to Apple .
WTG MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brilliant, give more people yet another reason to switch to Apple.
WTG MS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103742</id>
	<title>100\% guaranteed way to defeat WAT</title>
	<author>esmith512</author>
	<datestamp>1265921460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We were reviewing the Windows 7 WAT service and found a guaranteed way to circumvent the check and retain perpetual license validity and system usability.  Buy a Mac or a Linux system.  Works every time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We were reviewing the Windows 7 WAT service and found a guaranteed way to circumvent the check and retain perpetual license validity and system usability .
Buy a Mac or a Linux system .
Works every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were reviewing the Windows 7 WAT service and found a guaranteed way to circumvent the check and retain perpetual license validity and system usability.
Buy a Mac or a Linux system.
Works every time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102570</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dear MS employee:</p><p>1. bullshit.  was there a way to avoid installing WGA?  why would WAT be different?<br>2. bullshit.  nag screens (at the least) reduce functionality.<br>3. bullshit. "...because most people don't know they are."  damn near everyone using pirate copies knows it perfectly well.  it's not like the cracks to install aren't separate, unavoidable steps.<br>4. bullshit.  "...many of which include malicious code."  they're duped install discs.  or iso's taken from install disks.  if there's malicious code on them, you put it there (like WAT?).<br>5.  bullshit.  uh-huh.  like all the details you've released on what you provide to TSA and NSA.  why would anyone believe this?<br>6.  i don't think servers are the point.  but i don't know enough to call bullshit anymore.  gave up on windows awhile ago, and the last server i installed was 2003.</p><p>gates knew.  he realized early on that people stealing the OS (DOS, at the time) were some of his best and steadiest customers.  at the beginning he was upset (i seem to remember an open letter...) - but one of the main reasons he's as rich as he is, is that he accepted piracy of the OS for the greater profits of Office &amp; etc.</p><p>balmer is a rah-rah sales and marketing guy, who's life is dedicated to extracting every thin dime from every deal - even if that dime costs a dollar, later..  he'll be the end of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dear MS employee : 1. bullshit. was there a way to avoid installing WGA ?
why would WAT be different ? 2 .
bullshit. nag screens ( at the least ) reduce functionality.3 .
bullshit. " ...because most people do n't know they are .
" damn near everyone using pirate copies knows it perfectly well .
it 's not like the cracks to install are n't separate , unavoidable steps.4 .
bullshit. " ...many of which include malicious code .
" they 're duped install discs .
or iso 's taken from install disks .
if there 's malicious code on them , you put it there ( like WAT ? ) .5 .
bullshit. uh-huh .
like all the details you 've released on what you provide to TSA and NSA .
why would anyone believe this ? 6 .
i do n't think servers are the point .
but i do n't know enough to call bullshit anymore .
gave up on windows awhile ago , and the last server i installed was 2003.gates knew .
he realized early on that people stealing the OS ( DOS , at the time ) were some of his best and steadiest customers .
at the beginning he was upset ( i seem to remember an open letter... ) - but one of the main reasons he 's as rich as he is , is that he accepted piracy of the OS for the greater profits of Office &amp; etc.balmer is a rah-rah sales and marketing guy , who 's life is dedicated to extracting every thin dime from every deal - even if that dime costs a dollar , later.. he 'll be the end of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dear MS employee:1. bullshit.  was there a way to avoid installing WGA?
why would WAT be different?2.
bullshit.  nag screens (at the least) reduce functionality.3.
bullshit. "...because most people don't know they are.
"  damn near everyone using pirate copies knows it perfectly well.
it's not like the cracks to install aren't separate, unavoidable steps.4.
bullshit.  "...many of which include malicious code.
"  they're duped install discs.
or iso's taken from install disks.
if there's malicious code on them, you put it there (like WAT?).5.
bullshit.  uh-huh.
like all the details you've released on what you provide to TSA and NSA.
why would anyone believe this?6.
i don't think servers are the point.
but i don't know enough to call bullshit anymore.
gave up on windows awhile ago, and the last server i installed was 2003.gates knew.
he realized early on that people stealing the OS (DOS, at the time) were some of his best and steadiest customers.
at the beginning he was upset (i seem to remember an open letter...) - but one of the main reasons he's as rich as he is, is that he accepted piracy of the OS for the greater profits of Office &amp; etc.balmer is a rah-rah sales and marketing guy, who's life is dedicated to extracting every thin dime from every deal - even if that dime costs a dollar, later..  he'll be the end of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102500</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're too stupid to spell it out, you're too stupid to deserve the oxygen you're breathing.</p></div><p>So you're that guy that repeatedly stood up in the grade school auditorium during the Abbott and Costello sketch and yelled, "The man that is on first has an uncommon given name of 'Who' resulting in the confusion that is unfolding between the two of you.  Now that that is cleared up, carry on with the dialogue."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're too stupid to spell it out , you 're too stupid to deserve the oxygen you 're breathing.So you 're that guy that repeatedly stood up in the grade school auditorium during the Abbott and Costello sketch and yelled , " The man that is on first has an uncommon given name of 'Who ' resulting in the confusion that is unfolding between the two of you .
Now that that is cleared up , carry on with the dialogue .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're too stupid to spell it out, you're too stupid to deserve the oxygen you're breathing.So you're that guy that repeatedly stood up in the grade school auditorium during the Abbott and Costello sketch and yelled, "The man that is on first has an uncommon given name of 'Who' resulting in the confusion that is unfolding between the two of you.
Now that that is cleared up, carry on with the dialogue.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102022</id>
	<title>OEM workaround</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't the OEMs strongarm Microsoft into inserting a backdoor into Vista so that there would be no chance of their customers calling the OEMs and complaining of their (genuine) copies of Windows being considered non-genuine? I'm guessing this backdoor is built into 7 as well, and can be (if it hasn't already been) easily exploited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't the OEMs strongarm Microsoft into inserting a backdoor into Vista so that there would be no chance of their customers calling the OEMs and complaining of their ( genuine ) copies of Windows being considered non-genuine ?
I 'm guessing this backdoor is built into 7 as well , and can be ( if it has n't already been ) easily exploited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't the OEMs strongarm Microsoft into inserting a backdoor into Vista so that there would be no chance of their customers calling the OEMs and complaining of their (genuine) copies of Windows being considered non-genuine?
I'm guessing this backdoor is built into 7 as well, and can be (if it hasn't already been) easily exploited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</id>
	<title>Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>TheDarkener</author>
	<datestamp>1265914860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, conspiracy theorist point of view here, apologies... but... I mean, they can basically disable/cripple anyone's computer for any reason without notice.</p><p>Think of what governments would like to do with this little feature, during wartimes, etc...</p><p>Do you really trust Microsoft that much? Do you really want them to have that much control over your computer at any point in time? Your ability to communicate online?</p><p>Come on, this is really getting ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , conspiracy theorist point of view here , apologies... but... I mean , they can basically disable/cripple anyone 's computer for any reason without notice.Think of what governments would like to do with this little feature , during wartimes , etc...Do you really trust Microsoft that much ?
Do you really want them to have that much control over your computer at any point in time ?
Your ability to communicate online ? Come on , this is really getting ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, conspiracy theorist point of view here, apologies... but... I mean, they can basically disable/cripple anyone's computer for any reason without notice.Think of what governments would like to do with this little feature, during wartimes, etc...Do you really trust Microsoft that much?
Do you really want them to have that much control over your computer at any point in time?
Your ability to communicate online?Come on, this is really getting ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103996</id>
	<title>Re:Blimey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope I will remember to look up this discussion when Apple announce a similar feature. It will be especially fun to find a Mac fanboy defending Apple in that future thread while attacking Microsoft in this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope I will remember to look up this discussion when Apple announce a similar feature .
It will be especially fun to find a Mac fanboy defending Apple in that future thread while attacking Microsoft in this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope I will remember to look up this discussion when Apple announce a similar feature.
It will be especially fun to find a Mac fanboy defending Apple in that future thread while attacking Microsoft in this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31113768</id>
	<title>Mega-SIGH</title>
	<author>Happy Nuclear Death</author>
	<datestamp>1265993580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does MS always have to go and screw it up?  I have been using the Win 7 RC off and on since last October, and I really like it.  There are many good features, but some that really knocked my socks off:</p><p>-More stable than XP.  Badly-behaved programs that would lock up my Win XP SP3 box are allowed to die in Win 7, without taking the system down.  Also it doesn't take 15 minutes to pop up an error dialog.  This is how it should be.<br>-First time I've ever had a reasonable display mode on a fresh Windows install, before installing video drivers.  Win 7 has finally caught up to Ubuntu in this regard.<br>-Robust and useful disk imaging for backup.  Finally a real backup solution, included with the OS.</p><p>And so on.</p><p>But this phone-home BS, even if "optional," has me rethinking whether I really want to drop real $ to support more DRM shenanigans.  Even the $64.95 student price seems like too much, if I'm only paying to be treated like a criminal.  The last OS I actually bought was Windows XP Home, years ago.  It might stay that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does MS always have to go and screw it up ?
I have been using the Win 7 RC off and on since last October , and I really like it .
There are many good features , but some that really knocked my socks off : -More stable than XP .
Badly-behaved programs that would lock up my Win XP SP3 box are allowed to die in Win 7 , without taking the system down .
Also it does n't take 15 minutes to pop up an error dialog .
This is how it should be.-First time I 've ever had a reasonable display mode on a fresh Windows install , before installing video drivers .
Win 7 has finally caught up to Ubuntu in this regard.-Robust and useful disk imaging for backup .
Finally a real backup solution , included with the OS.And so on.But this phone-home BS , even if " optional , " has me rethinking whether I really want to drop real $ to support more DRM shenanigans .
Even the $ 64.95 student price seems like too much , if I 'm only paying to be treated like a criminal .
The last OS I actually bought was Windows XP Home , years ago .
It might stay that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does MS always have to go and screw it up?
I have been using the Win 7 RC off and on since last October, and I really like it.
There are many good features, but some that really knocked my socks off:-More stable than XP.
Badly-behaved programs that would lock up my Win XP SP3 box are allowed to die in Win 7, without taking the system down.
Also it doesn't take 15 minutes to pop up an error dialog.
This is how it should be.-First time I've ever had a reasonable display mode on a fresh Windows install, before installing video drivers.
Win 7 has finally caught up to Ubuntu in this regard.-Robust and useful disk imaging for backup.
Finally a real backup solution, included with the OS.And so on.But this phone-home BS, even if "optional," has me rethinking whether I really want to drop real $ to support more DRM shenanigans.
Even the $64.95 student price seems like too much, if I'm only paying to be treated like a criminal.
The last OS I actually bought was Windows XP Home, years ago.
It might stay that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104194</id>
	<title>Really dangerous</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1265879940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Think of what governments would like to do with this little feature, during wartimes, etc...</i>
<br> <br>
Why wait for wartime? If you were N korea, Iran or another belligerent country this seems like an easy way of screwing with the population/IT infrastructure/economy.
<br> <br>
Also, the military uses windows. Isn't it a HUGE security problem to have your boxes 'phoning home' and possibly degradng functionality if it doesn't work out?
<br> <br>
I find it ironic that MS has been adamant about not building in backdoors into its OS for years, and then does just that with this feature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of what governments would like to do with this little feature , during wartimes , etc.. . Why wait for wartime ?
If you were N korea , Iran or another belligerent country this seems like an easy way of screwing with the population/IT infrastructure/economy .
Also , the military uses windows .
Is n't it a HUGE security problem to have your boxes 'phoning home ' and possibly degradng functionality if it does n't work out ?
I find it ironic that MS has been adamant about not building in backdoors into its OS for years , and then does just that with this feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of what governments would like to do with this little feature, during wartimes, etc...
 
Why wait for wartime?
If you were N korea, Iran or another belligerent country this seems like an easy way of screwing with the population/IT infrastructure/economy.
Also, the military uses windows.
Isn't it a HUGE security problem to have your boxes 'phoning home' and possibly degradng functionality if it doesn't work out?
I find it ironic that MS has been adamant about not building in backdoors into its OS for years, and then does just that with this feature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102112</id>
	<title>Reason #eleventy billion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I stick with windows XP and slowly move over to ubuntu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I stick with windows XP and slowly move over to ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I stick with windows XP and slowly move over to ubuntu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102524</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this is a stupid question.</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1265917380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the system requirements say "an Internet connection", especially if the licensing agreement states the same requirement, and you don't have the resources to argue your case (through the legal system, arbitration, or some other channel) I'd say you are probably up a certain creak without access to the appropriate rowing equipment.</p><p>Caveat: I've not checked what the sysreqs or license say, I'm just speculating here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the system requirements say " an Internet connection " , especially if the licensing agreement states the same requirement , and you do n't have the resources to argue your case ( through the legal system , arbitration , or some other channel ) I 'd say you are probably up a certain creak without access to the appropriate rowing equipment.Caveat : I 've not checked what the sysreqs or license say , I 'm just speculating here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the system requirements say "an Internet connection", especially if the licensing agreement states the same requirement, and you don't have the resources to argue your case (through the legal system, arbitration, or some other channel) I'd say you are probably up a certain creak without access to the appropriate rowing equipment.Caveat: I've not checked what the sysreqs or license say, I'm just speculating here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101960</id>
	<title>Re:Now with Continuous Auditing! (aka surveillance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how this is happening right after Microsoft won that lawsuit regarding WGA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how this is happening right after Microsoft won that lawsuit regarding WGA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how this is happening right after Microsoft won that lawsuit regarding WGA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102978</id>
	<title>Re:Cmon people...</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1265918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just read the accompanying article describing the attempt to gain warrantless access to cell phone location data.</p><p>Between Easy Pass, Cell Phones and and my computer it is going to be the equivalent of having a tracking device implanted at birth.</p><p>What is the next step? An implanted kill switch?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just read the accompanying article describing the attempt to gain warrantless access to cell phone location data.Between Easy Pass , Cell Phones and and my computer it is going to be the equivalent of having a tracking device implanted at birth.What is the next step ?
An implanted kill switch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just read the accompanying article describing the attempt to gain warrantless access to cell phone location data.Between Easy Pass, Cell Phones and and my computer it is going to be the equivalent of having a tracking device implanted at birth.What is the next step?
An implanted kill switch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102046</id>
	<title>Firewall?</title>
	<author>Naito</author>
	<datestamp>1265915760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyway to block this off at the gateway? then claim that your computer doesn't have internet access and thus shouldn't be disabled if they do disable it?  I just don't like the idea of having ANYTHING "phone home" regularly behind my back</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway to block this off at the gateway ?
then claim that your computer does n't have internet access and thus should n't be disabled if they do disable it ?
I just do n't like the idea of having ANYTHING " phone home " regularly behind my back</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway to block this off at the gateway?
then claim that your computer doesn't have internet access and thus shouldn't be disabled if they do disable it?
I just don't like the idea of having ANYTHING "phone home" regularly behind my back</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102602</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the primary method of "disabling people's computers" during wartime is the billion dollar stealth bombers hitting power plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the primary method of " disabling people 's computers " during wartime is the billion dollar stealth bombers hitting power plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the primary method of "disabling people's computers" during wartime is the billion dollar stealth bombers hitting power plants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102716</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1265917860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Voluntary patch</p></div><p>Conveniently not, if they have updates turned on and automatically installed like they&rsquo;re supposed to.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.</p></div><p>Bullshit. Most people have a pretty good idea, most of them don&rsquo;t care, and the ones who really don&rsquo;t know <em>really</em> don&rsquo;t care.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.</p></div><p>That might be a convenient excuse, but it&rsquo;s certainly not the goal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Voluntary patchConveniently not , if they have updates turned on and automatically installed like they    re supposed to.Yes , Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you 're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people do n't know they are.Bullshit .
Most people have a pretty good idea , most of them don    t care , and the ones who really don    t know really don    t care.The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.That might be a convenient excuse , but it    s certainly not the goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voluntary patchConveniently not, if they have updates turned on and automatically installed like they’re supposed to.Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.Bullshit.
Most people have a pretty good idea, most of them don’t care, and the ones who really don’t know really don’t care.The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.That might be a convenient excuse, but it’s certainly not the goal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109396</id>
	<title>Re:The 1960s called... and are still ehre</title>
	<author>Hyperhaplo</author>
	<datestamp>1265908200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1960's???</p><p>IBM *STILL* charge by the CPU "minute"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1960 's ? ?
? IBM * STILL * charge by the CPU " minute "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1960's??
?IBM *STILL* charge by the CPU "minute"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108428</id>
	<title>Re:Cmon people...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265899080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you own a legitimate copy of Windows than this isn't an issue for you.</p></div><p>Wrong.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can be sure if they crippled *anyones* PC for a reason other than piracy then they would be flogged to death in an instant.</p></div><p>only if the person has grade AAAA personality license suitable for corporate media talking head status (like an oprah for ex) or some fortune 100 ceo who has top of the line support from ms anyway.  Everyone else gets to call the tech support line and hope ms will release their pc back to them without trouble.  Obviously youv'e never had to troubleshoot WGA before.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Once again, just more mongering and Microsoft hating.</p></div><p>once again, more torch bearing from a ms astroturfer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you own a legitimate copy of Windows than this is n't an issue for you.Wrong.You can be sure if they crippled * anyones * PC for a reason other than piracy then they would be flogged to death in an instant.only if the person has grade AAAA personality license suitable for corporate media talking head status ( like an oprah for ex ) or some fortune 100 ceo who has top of the line support from ms anyway .
Everyone else gets to call the tech support line and hope ms will release their pc back to them without trouble .
Obviously youv'e never had to troubleshoot WGA before.Once again , just more mongering and Microsoft hating.once again , more torch bearing from a ms astroturfer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you own a legitimate copy of Windows than this isn't an issue for you.Wrong.You can be sure if they crippled *anyones* PC for a reason other than piracy then they would be flogged to death in an instant.only if the person has grade AAAA personality license suitable for corporate media talking head status (like an oprah for ex) or some fortune 100 ceo who has top of the line support from ms anyway.
Everyone else gets to call the tech support line and hope ms will release their pc back to them without trouble.
Obviously youv'e never had to troubleshoot WGA before.Once again, just more mongering and Microsoft hating.once again, more torch bearing from a ms astroturfer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107540</id>
	<title>Re:I'm tired of paying money to rent software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265893440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News flash: you don't own "free" software either.  You're just "renting" it for no charge.</p><p>The stupid renting comparison really needs to stop.  It's getting old and childish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News flash : you do n't own " free " software either .
You 're just " renting " it for no charge.The stupid renting comparison really needs to stop .
It 's getting old and childish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News flash: you don't own "free" software either.
You're just "renting" it for no charge.The stupid renting comparison really needs to stop.
It's getting old and childish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105172</id>
	<title>Re:Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265883840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/17/2255247" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/17/2255247</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/01/17/2255247 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/17/2255247 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101844</id>
	<title>So don't install the update.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While your at it.. why not tell all your friends that windows update has been compromised and spy-ware will get onto their computer if they download the update.</p><p>Bit of a dirty trick but hey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While your at it.. why not tell all your friends that windows update has been compromised and spy-ware will get onto their computer if they download the update.Bit of a dirty trick but hey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While your at it.. why not tell all your friends that windows update has been compromised and spy-ware will get onto their computer if they download the update.Bit of a dirty trick but hey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102226</id>
	<title>MicRIAAsoft</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1265916480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does this sound so familiar? Customers are considered thieves as a general rule? Oh thats right, RIAA Playbook and guideline for the Music industry, page 2, "How to treat Customers". Now,if there is a malfunction, we, the consumers, will be forced to take measures to prove to Microsoft that our systems are genuine? Give me a break. The sad thing is 99\% of the general public will never hear about this until some server glitch causes their system to stop functioning normally and they have to call Microsoft(and how many will have to bungle through M$ofts cludge of a tech support center and pay for support for fixing Msofts problem). Call me skeptical as we know M$oft has a perfect track record of bug free software and nothing like that could ever happen. More to the point is the nerve of them for expecting consumers to put up with them probing our systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does this sound so familiar ?
Customers are considered thieves as a general rule ?
Oh thats right , RIAA Playbook and guideline for the Music industry , page 2 , " How to treat Customers " .
Now,if there is a malfunction , we , the consumers , will be forced to take measures to prove to Microsoft that our systems are genuine ?
Give me a break .
The sad thing is 99 \ % of the general public will never hear about this until some server glitch causes their system to stop functioning normally and they have to call Microsoft ( and how many will have to bungle through M $ ofts cludge of a tech support center and pay for support for fixing Msofts problem ) .
Call me skeptical as we know M $ oft has a perfect track record of bug free software and nothing like that could ever happen .
More to the point is the nerve of them for expecting consumers to put up with them probing our systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does this sound so familiar?
Customers are considered thieves as a general rule?
Oh thats right, RIAA Playbook and guideline for the Music industry, page 2, "How to treat Customers".
Now,if there is a malfunction, we, the consumers, will be forced to take measures to prove to Microsoft that our systems are genuine?
Give me a break.
The sad thing is 99\% of the general public will never hear about this until some server glitch causes their system to stop functioning normally and they have to call Microsoft(and how many will have to bungle through M$ofts cludge of a tech support center and pay for support for fixing Msofts problem).
Call me skeptical as we know M$oft has a perfect track record of bug free software and nothing like that could ever happen.
More to the point is the nerve of them for expecting consumers to put up with them probing our systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103428</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1265920320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, if the government wanted to shut down communications the last place I'd expect them to bother would be at the desktop.  Send marines to the major routing hubs, and you'll get a lot more bang for a lot less buck.  Computers may still work, but they can't talk to each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , if the government wanted to shut down communications the last place I 'd expect them to bother would be at the desktop .
Send marines to the major routing hubs , and you 'll get a lot more bang for a lot less buck .
Computers may still work , but they ca n't talk to each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, if the government wanted to shut down communications the last place I'd expect them to bother would be at the desktop.
Send marines to the major routing hubs, and you'll get a lot more bang for a lot less buck.
Computers may still work, but they can't talk to each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103088</id>
	<title>Re:Not news</title>
	<author>CmdrPorno</author>
	<datestamp>1265919000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins.</i></p><p>There are numerous reports of false WGA activations on machines with genuine Windows installations.   Where do they stop?  Why not just publish your tax returns and bank information to 4chan and then erase everything on your hard drive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins.There are numerous reports of false WGA activations on machines with genuine Windows installations .
Where do they stop ?
Why not just publish your tax returns and bank information to 4chan and then erase everything on your hard drive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins.There are numerous reports of false WGA activations on machines with genuine Windows installations.
Where do they stop?
Why not just publish your tax returns and bank information to 4chan and then erase everything on your hard drive?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103714</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265921340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say WAT again, motherfucker!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say WAT again , motherfucker !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say WAT again, motherfucker!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101854</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are still using Windows at this point, I'm sure you've accepted any terms that Microsoft will impose on you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are still using Windows at this point , I 'm sure you 've accepted any terms that Microsoft will impose on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are still using Windows at this point, I'm sure you've accepted any terms that Microsoft will impose on you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103680</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1265921220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>@FranTaylor, lots of people use Windows on a server</p></div><p>You are not refuting what I said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>@ FranTaylor , lots of people use Windows on a serverYou are not refuting what I said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@FranTaylor, lots of people use Windows on a serverYou are not refuting what I said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31112338</id>
	<title>WHAT?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1265987040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what happens if I have no internet connection, it just disables then I can't use my own computer, because I have no internet, I really hope not, can anyone verify this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens if I have no internet connection , it just disables then I ca n't use my own computer , because I have no internet , I really hope not , can anyone verify this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens if I have no internet connection, it just disables then I can't use my own computer, because I have no internet, I really hope not, can anyone verify this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102062</id>
	<title>Re:News flash</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1265915880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Autodesk opinion is calling you a fucking idiot liar.  When you purchase software, you OWN that copy of the software forever.</p><p><a href="http://bit.ly/ct8D08" title="bit.ly" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/ct8D08</a> [bit.ly] (that is to lawupdates.com)</p><p>Where do you people come up with this foolishness?  So, you put up your corporation and I will raise you an opinion that really matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Autodesk opinion is calling you a fucking idiot liar .
When you purchase software , you OWN that copy of the software forever.http : //bit.ly/ct8D08 [ bit.ly ] ( that is to lawupdates.com ) Where do you people come up with this foolishness ?
So , you put up your corporation and I will raise you an opinion that really matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Autodesk opinion is calling you a fucking idiot liar.
When you purchase software, you OWN that copy of the software forever.http://bit.ly/ct8D08 [bit.ly] (that is to lawupdates.com)Where do you people come up with this foolishness?
So, you put up your corporation and I will raise you an opinion that really matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106124</id>
	<title>Yeah, and...</title>
	<author>Juln</author>
	<datestamp>1265887380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there anyone who seriously is surprised by this? If so, I guess you haven't been paying attention to MS's behavior and plans for the past 15 years at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anyone who seriously is surprised by this ?
If so , I guess you have n't been paying attention to MS 's behavior and plans for the past 15 years at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anyone who seriously is surprised by this?
If so, I guess you haven't been paying attention to MS's behavior and plans for the past 15 years at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102498</id>
	<title>Re:Note to self....</title>
	<author>diamondsw</author>
	<datestamp>1265917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all subsequent service packs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all subsequent service packs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all subsequent service packs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088</id>
	<title>Maybe this is a stupid question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forgive me if this is a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I am not a Windows person. How does this work when the machine is not connected to the internet?  Say, sequestered on it's own network, but not leaving the room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive me if this is a stupid question with an obvious answer , but I am not a Windows person .
How does this work when the machine is not connected to the internet ?
Say , sequestered on it 's own network , but not leaving the room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive me if this is a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I am not a Windows person.
How does this work when the machine is not connected to the internet?
Say, sequestered on it's own network, but not leaving the room.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102552</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're either a shill or you've been a Microsoft employee for about two weeks.  WAT is WGA reloaded.  WGA was optional at first, then suddenly you couldn't get updates or services packs without it.  WAT will be the same way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're either a shill or you 've been a Microsoft employee for about two weeks .
WAT is WGA reloaded .
WGA was optional at first , then suddenly you could n't get updates or services packs without it .
WAT will be the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're either a shill or you've been a Microsoft employee for about two weeks.
WAT is WGA reloaded.
WGA was optional at first, then suddenly you couldn't get updates or services packs without it.
WAT will be the same way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102812</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, WAT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , WAT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, WAT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702</id>
	<title>Who's On First?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1265914440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lauren Weinstein sends in news of a major and disturbing Microsoft anti-piracy initiative called Windows Activation Technologies, or WAT.</p></div><p> <b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: Thank you for calling Microsoft, all calls may be monitored for training purposes and to ensure quality of service.  Now, what seems to be the problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
<b>Customer</b>: That's right.  <br>
<i>*pause*</i> <br>
<b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ? Sir, you have to give me more information.  <br>
<b>Customer</b>: I'll tell you my problem.  WAT is my problem. <br>
<b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question, you haven't told me yet. <br>
<b>Customer</b>: I didn't ask you a question.  <br>
<b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: Then why did you call?  Why do you need help?  <br>
<b>Customer</b>: WAT's wrong.  I can't activate Windows 7 but I just bought it! <br>
<b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: Okay, let's try to diagnose this problem.  What's wrong? <br>
<b>Customer</b>: Yes, I already said that, I know WAT is wrong! That is precisely why I called! <br>
<b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: Wait, why are you calling? <br>
<b>Customer</b>: WAT! <br>
<b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: I said, why are you calling?! <br>
<b>Customer</b>: WAT!  WAT, GODDAMNIT, <b>WAT</b>!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lauren Weinstein sends in news of a major and disturbing Microsoft anti-piracy initiative called Windows Activation Technologies , or WAT .
Microsoft Phone Support : Thank you for calling Microsoft , all calls may be monitored for training purposes and to ensure quality of service .
Now , what seems to be the problem .. . Customer : That 's right .
* pause * Microsoft Phone Support : ... ? Sir , you have to give me more information .
Customer : I 'll tell you my problem .
WAT is my problem .
Microsoft Phone Support : Sir , I do n't know the answer to that question , you have n't told me yet .
Customer : I did n't ask you a question .
Microsoft Phone Support : Then why did you call ?
Why do you need help ?
Customer : WAT 's wrong .
I ca n't activate Windows 7 but I just bought it !
Microsoft Phone Support : Okay , let 's try to diagnose this problem .
What 's wrong ?
Customer : Yes , I already said that , I know WAT is wrong !
That is precisely why I called !
Microsoft Phone Support : Wait , why are you calling ?
Customer : WAT !
Microsoft Phone Support : I said , why are you calling ? !
Customer : WAT !
WAT , GODDAMNIT , WAT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lauren Weinstein sends in news of a major and disturbing Microsoft anti-piracy initiative called Windows Activation Technologies, or WAT.
Microsoft Phone Support: Thank you for calling Microsoft, all calls may be monitored for training purposes and to ensure quality of service.
Now, what seems to be the problem ...
Customer: That's right.
*pause* 
Microsoft Phone Support: ... ? Sir, you have to give me more information.
Customer: I'll tell you my problem.
WAT is my problem.
Microsoft Phone Support: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question, you haven't told me yet.
Customer: I didn't ask you a question.
Microsoft Phone Support: Then why did you call?
Why do you need help?
Customer: WAT's wrong.
I can't activate Windows 7 but I just bought it!
Microsoft Phone Support: Okay, let's try to diagnose this problem.
What's wrong?
Customer: Yes, I already said that, I know WAT is wrong!
That is precisely why I called!
Microsoft Phone Support: Wait, why are you calling?
Customer: WAT!
Microsoft Phone Support: I said, why are you calling?!
Customer: WAT!
WAT, GODDAMNIT, WAT!!
!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108706</id>
	<title>Re:I'm tired of paying money to rent software</title>
	<author>chapstercni</author>
	<datestamp>1265901540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows XP -  Windows Steady State works amazingly well.</p><p>Other then that... Get all the software installed. Just the way you like it, including the activation.<br>Make an image of this system.<br>Write image to system to verify it is working.<br>Store image somewhere safe.<br>Put user documents/etc on a second partition, or network.</p><p>Machine gets hosed. Reimage machine. Everything works. Drivers. Software.<br>Create new user, and data is still available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows XP - Windows Steady State works amazingly well.Other then that... Get all the software installed .
Just the way you like it , including the activation.Make an image of this system.Write image to system to verify it is working.Store image somewhere safe.Put user documents/etc on a second partition , or network.Machine gets hosed .
Reimage machine .
Everything works .
Drivers. Software.Create new user , and data is still available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows XP -  Windows Steady State works amazingly well.Other then that... Get all the software installed.
Just the way you like it, including the activation.Make an image of this system.Write image to system to verify it is working.Store image somewhere safe.Put user documents/etc on a second partition, or network.Machine gets hosed.
Reimage machine.
Everything works.
Drivers. Software.Create new user, and data is still available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103872</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1265878800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only run Windows on my gaming machine now...and Win7 will probably (hopefully) be the last version of Windows I use at home. Once Linux gaming catches up (and it's not that far now), it's goodbye Microsoft, and good riddance! I mean I buy an OS that costs more than a netbook or low-end laptop and comes with the most sparse, shitty selection of apps for any present-day OS, and then you don't even have the decency to not treat me worse in return for this? SRSLY?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only run Windows on my gaming machine now...and Win7 will probably ( hopefully ) be the last version of Windows I use at home .
Once Linux gaming catches up ( and it 's not that far now ) , it 's goodbye Microsoft , and good riddance !
I mean I buy an OS that costs more than a netbook or low-end laptop and comes with the most sparse , shitty selection of apps for any present-day OS , and then you do n't even have the decency to not treat me worse in return for this ?
SRSLY ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only run Windows on my gaming machine now...and Win7 will probably (hopefully) be the last version of Windows I use at home.
Once Linux gaming catches up (and it's not that far now), it's goodbye Microsoft, and good riddance!
I mean I buy an OS that costs more than a netbook or low-end laptop and comes with the most sparse, shitty selection of apps for any present-day OS, and then you don't even have the decency to not treat me worse in return for this?
SRSLY?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102630</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would rather trust a big company like Microsoft than a smaller business which could be easily bribed into "helping" a government.</p><p>I don't think Microsoft will abuse WAT, even though I'd be glad if they wouldn't use it at all. But since I can't suggest an equally effective and less annoying way to protect software from piracy, I can't condemn them for using WAT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would rather trust a big company like Microsoft than a smaller business which could be easily bribed into " helping " a government.I do n't think Microsoft will abuse WAT , even though I 'd be glad if they would n't use it at all .
But since I ca n't suggest an equally effective and less annoying way to protect software from piracy , I ca n't condemn them for using WAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would rather trust a big company like Microsoft than a smaller business which could be easily bribed into "helping" a government.I don't think Microsoft will abuse WAT, even though I'd be glad if they wouldn't use it at all.
But since I can't suggest an equally effective and less annoying way to protect software from piracy, I can't condemn them for using WAT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103276</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>DogDude</author>
	<datestamp>1265919720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Do you really trust Microsoft that much?"</i>

Yes.  I have no reason not to.  They have money to make, and they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot.  Did your tinfoil hat tell you some reason why I shouldn't trust them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do you really trust Microsoft that much ?
" Yes .
I have no reason not to .
They have money to make , and they 're not going to shoot themselves in the foot .
Did your tinfoil hat tell you some reason why I should n't trust them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do you really trust Microsoft that much?
"

Yes.
I have no reason not to.
They have money to make, and they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot.
Did your tinfoil hat tell you some reason why I shouldn't trust them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105586</id>
	<title>Re:Note to self....</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1265885340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, I thought Linux was supposed to be difficult and time consuming for no good reason...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , I thought Linux was supposed to be difficult and time consuming for no good reason.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, I thought Linux was supposed to be difficult and time consuming for no good reason...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103172</id>
	<title>Obliligatory movie misquotes</title>
	<author>Capt.DrumkenBum</author>
	<datestamp>1265919300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The more you tighten your grip, Ballmer, the more systems will slip through your fingers.
<br> <br>
I see linux installs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The more you tighten your grip , Ballmer , the more systems will slip through your fingers .
I see linux installs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more you tighten your grip, Ballmer, the more systems will slip through your fingers.
I see linux installs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101796</id>
	<title>Can it be avoided?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could manage to avoid WGA by unchecking the checkbox when it asked to install via update, then making sure it didn't mention un-selected updates.  I wonder if judicious users can keep an eye out for this and do the same?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could manage to avoid WGA by unchecking the checkbox when it asked to install via update , then making sure it did n't mention un-selected updates .
I wonder if judicious users can keep an eye out for this and do the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could manage to avoid WGA by unchecking the checkbox when it asked to install via update, then making sure it didn't mention un-selected updates.
I wonder if judicious users can keep an eye out for this and do the same?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102256</id>
	<title>Re:Can it be avoided?</title>
	<author>Crock23A</author>
	<datestamp>1265916600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is very well and good until SP1 comes out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is very well and good until SP1 comes out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is very well and good until SP1 comes out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102654</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.</p></div><p>Very true.</p><p>Occasionally we'll get a call from someone who's become dis-satisfied with their current IT provider...  They're shopping around for alternatives, maybe wondering if they've been getting screwed over the years...  Maybe wondering if the grass is greener on the other side...</p><p>So, we'll go in and take a look around, do a site survey.  Sometimes you start seeing a bunch of computers with automatic updates disabled...  No service packs installed at all...  Home-made systems...  And nobody can come up with any licensing information at all...</p><p>We'll get permission to install WGA on their systems, and you'll see about 50\% of them are non-genuine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
Yes , Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you 're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people do n't know they are.Very true.Occasionally we 'll get a call from someone who 's become dis-satisfied with their current IT provider... They 're shopping around for alternatives , maybe wondering if they 've been getting screwed over the years... Maybe wondering if the grass is greener on the other side...So , we 'll go in and take a look around , do a site survey .
Sometimes you start seeing a bunch of computers with automatic updates disabled... No service packs installed at all... Home-made systems... And nobody can come up with any licensing information at all...We 'll get permission to install WGA on their systems , and you 'll see about 50 \ % of them are non-genuine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.Very true.Occasionally we'll get a call from someone who's become dis-satisfied with their current IT provider...  They're shopping around for alternatives, maybe wondering if they've been getting screwed over the years...  Maybe wondering if the grass is greener on the other side...So, we'll go in and take a look around, do a site survey.
Sometimes you start seeing a bunch of computers with automatic updates disabled...  No service packs installed at all...  Home-made systems...  And nobody can come up with any licensing information at all...We'll get permission to install WGA on their systems, and you'll see about 50\% of them are non-genuine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102242</id>
	<title>Cant we call it...</title>
	<author>coffii</author>
	<datestamp>1265916540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trusted Windows Activation Technologies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trusted Windows Activation Technologies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trusted Windows Activation Technologies</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102230</id>
	<title>I'm all for it</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265916540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watever it takes to drive away customers and make the alternatives more desirable. Businesses won't tolerate it, and Microsoft will listen to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watever it takes to drive away customers and make the alternatives more desirable .
Businesses wo n't tolerate it , and Microsoft will listen to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watever it takes to drive away customers and make the alternatives more desirable.
Businesses won't tolerate it, and Microsoft will listen to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102640</id>
	<title>Re:The 1960s called...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not unlike IBM charging for use of their hardware and software on a per cycle basis.</p></div><p>Erm, except that it's nothing like it at all? I think this is a crappy solution, but I also don't see how this comparison is valid.  They're not charging for anything on a usage basis. In fact, they're not charging for anything at all except the initial sale of the Windows license. And theoretically this will make sure they get that -- though the reality will be quite different, I'm sure.
</p><p>
While this step has me worried for other reasons (see my reply elsewhere on this page), your comparison is disingenuous at best.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not unlike IBM charging for use of their hardware and software on a per cycle basis.Erm , except that it 's nothing like it at all ?
I think this is a crappy solution , but I also do n't see how this comparison is valid .
They 're not charging for anything on a usage basis .
In fact , they 're not charging for anything at all except the initial sale of the Windows license .
And theoretically this will make sure they get that -- though the reality will be quite different , I 'm sure .
While this step has me worried for other reasons ( see my reply elsewhere on this page ) , your comparison is disingenuous at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not unlike IBM charging for use of their hardware and software on a per cycle basis.Erm, except that it's nothing like it at all?
I think this is a crappy solution, but I also don't see how this comparison is valid.
They're not charging for anything on a usage basis.
In fact, they're not charging for anything at all except the initial sale of the Windows license.
And theoretically this will make sure they get that -- though the reality will be quite different, I'm sure.
While this step has me worried for other reasons (see my reply elsewhere on this page), your comparison is disingenuous at best.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102252</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL!</p><p>Apple sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL ! Apple sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL!Apple sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102846</id>
	<title>Re:News flash</title>
	<author>linux\_geek\_germany</author>
	<datestamp>1265918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft's EULA is - for example - not legally enforcable in Europe. If they shut down your software I'm pretty sure you could go to a court and get at least reimbursement. They can't override local laws with their EULAs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's EULA is - for example - not legally enforcable in Europe .
If they shut down your software I 'm pretty sure you could go to a court and get at least reimbursement .
They ca n't override local laws with their EULAs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's EULA is - for example - not legally enforcable in Europe.
If they shut down your software I'm pretty sure you could go to a court and get at least reimbursement.
They can't override local laws with their EULAs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102094</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>rsax</author>
	<datestamp>1265916000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sir, I salute you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sir , I salute you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sir, I salute you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102664</id>
	<title>I already regret this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>//South Carolina Congressman Here//</p><p>If you read the public notice it has some valid points about how it works:</p><p>1. Voluntary self-identification process<br>2. When non-genuine thought is detected, citizenship is NOT reduced<br>3. Yes, we did decide to notify/annoy everyone that certain people are enemies of the state which is a good thing because most people don't know who they are<br>4. The goal is reduce the number of unidentified enemies of the state, many of whom oppose our policies<br>5. No harm will come to any identified enemies of the State. This is stated CLEARLY in our current propaganda<br>6. It does not apply to any real free speech where corporate sponsors are used. @FreeAssembly, lots of states are selective about their fundamental rights... what planet are you on...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o)</p><p>The newspaper headline is a little outlandish considering the aforementioned propaganda we are providing. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts before they are illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>//South Carolina Congressman Here//If you read the public notice it has some valid points about how it works : 1 .
Voluntary self-identification process2 .
When non-genuine thought is detected , citizenship is NOT reduced3 .
Yes , we did decide to notify/annoy everyone that certain people are enemies of the state which is a good thing because most people do n't know who they are4 .
The goal is reduce the number of unidentified enemies of the state , many of whom oppose our policies5 .
No harm will come to any identified enemies of the State .
This is stated CLEARLY in our current propaganda6 .
It does not apply to any real free speech where corporate sponsors are used .
@ FreeAssembly , lots of states are selective about their fundamental rights... what planet are you on... : o ) The newspaper headline is a little outlandish considering the aforementioned propaganda we are providing .
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts before they are illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>//South Carolina Congressman Here//If you read the public notice it has some valid points about how it works:1.
Voluntary self-identification process2.
When non-genuine thought is detected, citizenship is NOT reduced3.
Yes, we did decide to notify/annoy everyone that certain people are enemies of the state which is a good thing because most people don't know who they are4.
The goal is reduce the number of unidentified enemies of the state, many of whom oppose our policies5.
No harm will come to any identified enemies of the State.
This is stated CLEARLY in our current propaganda6.
It does not apply to any real free speech where corporate sponsors are used.
@FreeAssembly, lots of states are selective about their fundamental rights... what planet are you on... :o)The newspaper headline is a little outlandish considering the aforementioned propaganda we are providing.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts before they are illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102080</id>
	<title>if you don't like it, don't use windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a multitude of excellent Linux distributions, BSD variants, and Solaris. Why would you want to use an operating system that isn't free? It just seems crazy.<br>Why would you want to use an operating system that violates your right to privacy, includes digital restriction management viruses, and suffers from virus and malware infestations. It just seems stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a multitude of excellent Linux distributions , BSD variants , and Solaris .
Why would you want to use an operating system that is n't free ?
It just seems crazy.Why would you want to use an operating system that violates your right to privacy , includes digital restriction management viruses , and suffers from virus and malware infestations .
It just seems stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a multitude of excellent Linux distributions, BSD variants, and Solaris.
Why would you want to use an operating system that isn't free?
It just seems crazy.Why would you want to use an operating system that violates your right to privacy, includes digital restriction management viruses, and suffers from virus and malware infestations.
It just seems stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102740</id>
	<title>Re:Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run an old system with xp for nothing more than to act as a print server. All our computers and servers run a mix of different linux distros and have done for the last 4 years. Every system is licensed for XP or Vista and, after the first debacle with WGA saying that two of our legit XP installs were pirated, we ditched microsoft products altogether (except the print server). Any new systems we purchase are built in-house and we will never pay the microsoft tax again.</p><p>I will never, ever, allow any software package to be used in our organisation that can be disabled remotely by the company that wrote the software. Why run the risk of losing a major client, when you can't get that important document to them on time, because the software has locked you out. It's like cruising down the highway at 120mph with dodgy brakes and no seat belts.</p><p>While the printer does work pretty good when shared via samba, the only thing that seems to be missing in the linux drivers is support for the 600dpi resolution that the printer provides for. All I can seem to get using linux is 300dpi and any color images come out looking like something from the early 90s and blotchy as hell. I will eventually get around to opening up the source code and adding what we need.</p><p>I also don't run any kind of virus scanner or any other app on that XP system. The first job after hooking it up to the network was to block any traffic heading to/from that server on any port other than the ones needed for the printer. As far as I am concerned, windows should only be allowed to run with NO internet connection whatsoever. Yeah it's ugly.... but it works for me.</p><p>Oh, and way to go Albany High School here in Auckland, NZ. (was featured here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. a few weeks back but I am too lazy to go hunting for links. Typing when tired is hard enough). Lots of kudos due for the way they set up their entire network using open source software. That alone makes their students much more employable in our eyes. I have declined many a person for job interviews based SOLELY on the fact that their resume had "qualifications" where the whole course was based on "the microsoft way".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run an old system with xp for nothing more than to act as a print server .
All our computers and servers run a mix of different linux distros and have done for the last 4 years .
Every system is licensed for XP or Vista and , after the first debacle with WGA saying that two of our legit XP installs were pirated , we ditched microsoft products altogether ( except the print server ) .
Any new systems we purchase are built in-house and we will never pay the microsoft tax again.I will never , ever , allow any software package to be used in our organisation that can be disabled remotely by the company that wrote the software .
Why run the risk of losing a major client , when you ca n't get that important document to them on time , because the software has locked you out .
It 's like cruising down the highway at 120mph with dodgy brakes and no seat belts.While the printer does work pretty good when shared via samba , the only thing that seems to be missing in the linux drivers is support for the 600dpi resolution that the printer provides for .
All I can seem to get using linux is 300dpi and any color images come out looking like something from the early 90s and blotchy as hell .
I will eventually get around to opening up the source code and adding what we need.I also do n't run any kind of virus scanner or any other app on that XP system .
The first job after hooking it up to the network was to block any traffic heading to/from that server on any port other than the ones needed for the printer .
As far as I am concerned , windows should only be allowed to run with NO internet connection whatsoever .
Yeah it 's ugly.... but it works for me.Oh , and way to go Albany High School here in Auckland , NZ .
( was featured here on / .
a few weeks back but I am too lazy to go hunting for links .
Typing when tired is hard enough ) .
Lots of kudos due for the way they set up their entire network using open source software .
That alone makes their students much more employable in our eyes .
I have declined many a person for job interviews based SOLELY on the fact that their resume had " qualifications " where the whole course was based on " the microsoft way " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run an old system with xp for nothing more than to act as a print server.
All our computers and servers run a mix of different linux distros and have done for the last 4 years.
Every system is licensed for XP or Vista and, after the first debacle with WGA saying that two of our legit XP installs were pirated, we ditched microsoft products altogether (except the print server).
Any new systems we purchase are built in-house and we will never pay the microsoft tax again.I will never, ever, allow any software package to be used in our organisation that can be disabled remotely by the company that wrote the software.
Why run the risk of losing a major client, when you can't get that important document to them on time, because the software has locked you out.
It's like cruising down the highway at 120mph with dodgy brakes and no seat belts.While the printer does work pretty good when shared via samba, the only thing that seems to be missing in the linux drivers is support for the 600dpi resolution that the printer provides for.
All I can seem to get using linux is 300dpi and any color images come out looking like something from the early 90s and blotchy as hell.
I will eventually get around to opening up the source code and adding what we need.I also don't run any kind of virus scanner or any other app on that XP system.
The first job after hooking it up to the network was to block any traffic heading to/from that server on any port other than the ones needed for the printer.
As far as I am concerned, windows should only be allowed to run with NO internet connection whatsoever.
Yeah it's ugly.... but it works for me.Oh, and way to go Albany High School here in Auckland, NZ.
(was featured here on /.
a few weeks back but I am too lazy to go hunting for links.
Typing when tired is hard enough).
Lots of kudos due for the way they set up their entire network using open source software.
That alone makes their students much more employable in our eyes.
I have declined many a person for job interviews based SOLELY on the fact that their resume had "qualifications" where the whole course was based on "the microsoft way".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107796</id>
	<title>Persecuting the paying customers</title>
	<author>lump</author>
	<datestamp>1265894760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apologies if this has already been mentioned, ad infinitum, but I really hate the way these measures end up punishing the "good guy". ie: I have a copy of Vista on my PC, which was installed when I purchase it, and is therefore entirely legit. But, I have never activated, mainly because I can't be assed. This particular box is not connected to the internet, nor does it have any (convenient) connectivity I can use to connect it, without running ethernet through a couple of rooms.

So of course, I'm now being persecuted by my legally purchased OS (makes me wait to log in, won't save my desktop settings, etc.), because I haven't kissed MS's ass yet, and called them for an activation code. Yes I know this would be very easy to do, but it just irks me that I *have to*.
And yet, if I had downloaded a cracked version of Vista, I wouldn't be getting this crap.
I bought the freakin thing, it's mine, I own it. This is no way to go about providing an operating system for computer users.
They need to ditch this preoccupation with squeezing their customers. So what if some fat-cat can't afford a new Rolls-Royce every year due to some people getting free copies of their OS, why the hell should that be my problem? I'm the one that DID pay for it, fer crissakes.

Sorry if this adds exactly nothing to the discussion, I just had to moan to somebody...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apologies if this has already been mentioned , ad infinitum , but I really hate the way these measures end up punishing the " good guy " .
ie : I have a copy of Vista on my PC , which was installed when I purchase it , and is therefore entirely legit .
But , I have never activated , mainly because I ca n't be assed .
This particular box is not connected to the internet , nor does it have any ( convenient ) connectivity I can use to connect it , without running ethernet through a couple of rooms .
So of course , I 'm now being persecuted by my legally purchased OS ( makes me wait to log in , wo n't save my desktop settings , etc .
) , because I have n't kissed MS 's ass yet , and called them for an activation code .
Yes I know this would be very easy to do , but it just irks me that I * have to * .
And yet , if I had downloaded a cracked version of Vista , I would n't be getting this crap .
I bought the freakin thing , it 's mine , I own it .
This is no way to go about providing an operating system for computer users .
They need to ditch this preoccupation with squeezing their customers .
So what if some fat-cat ca n't afford a new Rolls-Royce every year due to some people getting free copies of their OS , why the hell should that be my problem ?
I 'm the one that DID pay for it , fer crissakes .
Sorry if this adds exactly nothing to the discussion , I just had to moan to somebody.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apologies if this has already been mentioned, ad infinitum, but I really hate the way these measures end up punishing the "good guy".
ie: I have a copy of Vista on my PC, which was installed when I purchase it, and is therefore entirely legit.
But, I have never activated, mainly because I can't be assed.
This particular box is not connected to the internet, nor does it have any (convenient) connectivity I can use to connect it, without running ethernet through a couple of rooms.
So of course, I'm now being persecuted by my legally purchased OS (makes me wait to log in, won't save my desktop settings, etc.
), because I haven't kissed MS's ass yet, and called them for an activation code.
Yes I know this would be very easy to do, but it just irks me that I *have to*.
And yet, if I had downloaded a cracked version of Vista, I wouldn't be getting this crap.
I bought the freakin thing, it's mine, I own it.
This is no way to go about providing an operating system for computer users.
They need to ditch this preoccupation with squeezing their customers.
So what if some fat-cat can't afford a new Rolls-Royce every year due to some people getting free copies of their OS, why the hell should that be my problem?
I'm the one that DID pay for it, fer crissakes.
Sorry if this adds exactly nothing to the discussion, I just had to moan to somebody...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101882</id>
	<title>Calling every 90 days</title>
	<author>aBaldrich</author>
	<datestamp>1265915220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That means I have at most 90 days left!</p><p>I'll start spinning counter-clockwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That means I have at most 90 days left ! I 'll start spinning counter-clockwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That means I have at most 90 days left!I'll start spinning counter-clockwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102340</id>
	<title>Re:Well that pretty much settles it for me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Looks like the Win7 upgrade is off the table for me.  Dual-booting XP &amp; Kubuntu for the foreseeable future!</p></div><p>Sure it is...</p><p>And I bet you were genuinely considering upgrading to Win7 to replace your dual-boot setup...  And were all set to go ahead with it...  And this bit of news just broke the deal, right?</p><p>XP has had WGA for years now, which does similar things.  No, not identical, which is why WAT is being rolled out.  But if WAT is such a horrific deal-breaker I can't imagine you're happy with WGA either.  And if you've managed to deal with WGA for all these years, you could deal with WAT as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the Win7 upgrade is off the table for me .
Dual-booting XP &amp; Kubuntu for the foreseeable future ! Sure it is...And I bet you were genuinely considering upgrading to Win7 to replace your dual-boot setup... And were all set to go ahead with it... And this bit of news just broke the deal , right ? XP has had WGA for years now , which does similar things .
No , not identical , which is why WAT is being rolled out .
But if WAT is such a horrific deal-breaker I ca n't imagine you 're happy with WGA either .
And if you 've managed to deal with WGA for all these years , you could deal with WAT as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the Win7 upgrade is off the table for me.
Dual-booting XP &amp; Kubuntu for the foreseeable future!Sure it is...And I bet you were genuinely considering upgrading to Win7 to replace your dual-boot setup...  And were all set to go ahead with it...  And this bit of news just broke the deal, right?XP has had WGA for years now, which does similar things.
No, not identical, which is why WAT is being rolled out.
But if WAT is such a horrific deal-breaker I can't imagine you're happy with WGA either.
And if you've managed to deal with WGA for all these years, you could deal with WAT as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102750</id>
	<title>Fantastic news!</title>
	<author>ghetto2ivy</author>
	<datestamp>1265917980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pirates -- when you get sick of grandma being accused of stealing windows, and she won't eat tuna for 2 months to find the money for $300 for windows 7, maybe you'll spend 30 minutes showing Grandma how to use firefox on Ubuntu instead.
<br>
Purchasers -- when you get sick of windows accusing you of stealing your copy when you upgrade too many pieces, keep in mind that your copy of Ubuntu won't complain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pirates -- when you get sick of grandma being accused of stealing windows , and she wo n't eat tuna for 2 months to find the money for $ 300 for windows 7 , maybe you 'll spend 30 minutes showing Grandma how to use firefox on Ubuntu instead .
Purchasers -- when you get sick of windows accusing you of stealing your copy when you upgrade too many pieces , keep in mind that your copy of Ubuntu wo n't complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pirates -- when you get sick of grandma being accused of stealing windows, and she won't eat tuna for 2 months to find the money for $300 for windows 7, maybe you'll spend 30 minutes showing Grandma how to use firefox on Ubuntu instead.
Purchasers -- when you get sick of windows accusing you of stealing your copy when you upgrade too many pieces, keep in mind that your copy of Ubuntu won't complain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103304</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>joe\_bruin</author>
	<datestamp>1265919840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, all versions of Windows are "genuine".  There isn't someone out there making a knock-off operating system and selling it as Windows, so let's stop the doublespeak.</p><p>What you're trying to stop is unlicensed installations.  If I bought a machine from some vendor and he put on a copy of Windows, I honestly don't care as long as it keeps working.  If this thing starts popping up, you've made your copyright enforcement problems my problems.  Trust me, I have enough problems without dealing with Microsoft's.</p><p>Voluntary is another bit of nonsense.  It's voluntary but you can't get updates without it.  We all know how that goes, we've seen it before.</p><p>No personally identifiable information is transmitted.  That is until you need to call Microsoft to get your Windows reactivated.</p><p>Pirates will work around it.  Honest users will be inconvenienced.  MS can keep this patch, we don't want it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , all versions of Windows are " genuine " .
There is n't someone out there making a knock-off operating system and selling it as Windows , so let 's stop the doublespeak.What you 're trying to stop is unlicensed installations .
If I bought a machine from some vendor and he put on a copy of Windows , I honestly do n't care as long as it keeps working .
If this thing starts popping up , you 've made your copyright enforcement problems my problems .
Trust me , I have enough problems without dealing with Microsoft 's.Voluntary is another bit of nonsense .
It 's voluntary but you ca n't get updates without it .
We all know how that goes , we 've seen it before.No personally identifiable information is transmitted .
That is until you need to call Microsoft to get your Windows reactivated.Pirates will work around it .
Honest users will be inconvenienced .
MS can keep this patch , we do n't want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, all versions of Windows are "genuine".
There isn't someone out there making a knock-off operating system and selling it as Windows, so let's stop the doublespeak.What you're trying to stop is unlicensed installations.
If I bought a machine from some vendor and he put on a copy of Windows, I honestly don't care as long as it keeps working.
If this thing starts popping up, you've made your copyright enforcement problems my problems.
Trust me, I have enough problems without dealing with Microsoft's.Voluntary is another bit of nonsense.
It's voluntary but you can't get updates without it.
We all know how that goes, we've seen it before.No personally identifiable information is transmitted.
That is until you need to call Microsoft to get your Windows reactivated.Pirates will work around it.
Honest users will be inconvenienced.
MS can keep this patch, we don't want it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102364</id>
	<title>Re:Not news</title>
	<author>Stenchwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265916900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they shut you down you wouldn't be able to follow the prompts and links to give them your money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they shut you down you would n't be able to follow the prompts and links to give them your money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they shut you down you wouldn't be able to follow the prompts and links to give them your money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108108</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265896740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wake up, they DO have this ability and have had it since at least as far back as the release of  Xp.  Any computer plugged into the internet and you give them your ip info or serial number(for prefab Dells, Compaq's, ect...) and they can backdoor in and adjust any thing they want in your system's settings and file structure.  I've seen it done several times.  This is just a method of allowing them to not need  you for the information needed to detect  your system without having  you call support to fix an actual problem such as getting locked out of your system by your former security dept. manager.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake up , they DO have this ability and have had it since at least as far back as the release of Xp .
Any computer plugged into the internet and you give them your ip info or serial number ( for prefab Dells , Compaq 's , ect... ) and they can backdoor in and adjust any thing they want in your system 's settings and file structure .
I 've seen it done several times .
This is just a method of allowing them to not need you for the information needed to detect your system without having you call support to fix an actual problem such as getting locked out of your system by your former security dept .
manager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake up, they DO have this ability and have had it since at least as far back as the release of  Xp.
Any computer plugged into the internet and you give them your ip info or serial number(for prefab Dells, Compaq's, ect...) and they can backdoor in and adjust any thing they want in your system's settings and file structure.
I've seen it done several times.
This is just a method of allowing them to not need  you for the information needed to detect  your system without having  you call support to fix an actual problem such as getting locked out of your system by your former security dept.
manager.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110296</id>
	<title>Re:So what do they do</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1266006480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WGA and WAT are not targeted at people who pirate.  All it does is tell them their software might not be genuine, which people can largely ignore.</p><p>WGA and WAT are targeted at mass scale counterfeiters.. And that market *IS* actually quite large, and combatting it is worth their time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WGA and WAT are not targeted at people who pirate .
All it does is tell them their software might not be genuine , which people can largely ignore.WGA and WAT are targeted at mass scale counterfeiters.. And that market * IS * actually quite large , and combatting it is worth their time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WGA and WAT are not targeted at people who pirate.
All it does is tell them their software might not be genuine, which people can largely ignore.WGA and WAT are targeted at mass scale counterfeiters.. And that market *IS* actually quite large, and combatting it is worth their time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104202</id>
	<title>Why care?</title>
	<author>nuckfuts</author>
	<datestamp>1265880000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a privacy perspective, how is this worse than the dozens of common applications that already "phone home" all the time to check for updates, etc?</p><p>Since I'm running a legitimate copy of Windows, unless it gets flagged incorrectly as non-genuine, I'll neither notice or care that it runs this little check every three months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a privacy perspective , how is this worse than the dozens of common applications that already " phone home " all the time to check for updates , etc ? Since I 'm running a legitimate copy of Windows , unless it gets flagged incorrectly as non-genuine , I 'll neither notice or care that it runs this little check every three months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a privacy perspective, how is this worse than the dozens of common applications that already "phone home" all the time to check for updates, etc?Since I'm running a legitimate copy of Windows, unless it gets flagged incorrectly as non-genuine, I'll neither notice or care that it runs this little check every three months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103830</id>
	<title>Re:Not news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265921760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But but, M$... evil!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But but , M $ ... evil !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But but, M$... evil!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103156</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265919240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Voluntary patch</p></div><p>You say that but I still believe it.  I had a bunch of systems with valid copies of Office, but I installed a new WGA patch through Microsoft Update and suddenly Office turned into nagware and insisted that it wasn't "genuine".**  No problem, I thought, because I'd already turned off automatic updates since it was the only way to get my computer to stop trying to force me into upgrading to IE8.
</p><p>Flash forward a couple of weeks, and somehow auto-update started turning itself on for all my computers.  Don't bother telling me it can't do that because it did.  So now I have to reimage these machines because I can't find a way to uninstall the WGA update.
</p><p>** It was genuine software that I bought through valid channels.  "Genuine" is absolutely crappy and misleading word choice.  It's not as though they're detecting that the software isn't genuine, but rather they're detecting that your product key is on a blacklist for reasons unknown.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Voluntary patchYou say that but I still believe it .
I had a bunch of systems with valid copies of Office , but I installed a new WGA patch through Microsoft Update and suddenly Office turned into nagware and insisted that it was n't " genuine " .
* * No problem , I thought , because I 'd already turned off automatic updates since it was the only way to get my computer to stop trying to force me into upgrading to IE8 .
Flash forward a couple of weeks , and somehow auto-update started turning itself on for all my computers .
Do n't bother telling me it ca n't do that because it did .
So now I have to reimage these machines because I ca n't find a way to uninstall the WGA update .
* * It was genuine software that I bought through valid channels .
" Genuine " is absolutely crappy and misleading word choice .
It 's not as though they 're detecting that the software is n't genuine , but rather they 're detecting that your product key is on a blacklist for reasons unknown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Voluntary patchYou say that but I still believe it.
I had a bunch of systems with valid copies of Office, but I installed a new WGA patch through Microsoft Update and suddenly Office turned into nagware and insisted that it wasn't "genuine".
**  No problem, I thought, because I'd already turned off automatic updates since it was the only way to get my computer to stop trying to force me into upgrading to IE8.
Flash forward a couple of weeks, and somehow auto-update started turning itself on for all my computers.
Don't bother telling me it can't do that because it did.
So now I have to reimage these machines because I can't find a way to uninstall the WGA update.
** It was genuine software that I bought through valid channels.
"Genuine" is absolutely crappy and misleading word choice.
It's not as though they're detecting that the software isn't genuine, but rather they're detecting that your product key is on a blacklist for reasons unknown.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106404</id>
	<title>Re:Note to self....</title>
	<author>I cant believe its n</author>
	<datestamp>1265888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My settings where "download but do not install patches", yet one day ago my machine declared that it was patching as it was shutting down (Windows Defender was updated). The Windows 7 Super Bing Experience Live Hotmail Artificial Intelligence Engine 2.5 must have made a decision overruling my own.
<br> <br>
I have now switched to "do not check for updates at all", but have a bet going that this will install anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My settings where " download but do not install patches " , yet one day ago my machine declared that it was patching as it was shutting down ( Windows Defender was updated ) .
The Windows 7 Super Bing Experience Live Hotmail Artificial Intelligence Engine 2.5 must have made a decision overruling my own .
I have now switched to " do not check for updates at all " , but have a bet going that this will install anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My settings where "download but do not install patches", yet one day ago my machine declared that it was patching as it was shutting down (Windows Defender was updated).
The Windows 7 Super Bing Experience Live Hotmail Artificial Intelligence Engine 2.5 must have made a decision overruling my own.
I have now switched to "do not check for updates at all", but have a bet going that this will install anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106390</id>
	<title>Re:Cmon people...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Say that when the pirates start using YOUR license code, and Microsoft decided to shutdown YOUR machine. Where do you think they get the codes they use? The randomly generate them. When one gets used to much, Microsoft blacklists it. So come talk to me when it's YOURS that gets used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say that when the pirates start using YOUR license code , and Microsoft decided to shutdown YOUR machine .
Where do you think they get the codes they use ?
The randomly generate them .
When one gets used to much , Microsoft blacklists it .
So come talk to me when it 's YOURS that gets used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say that when the pirates start using YOUR license code, and Microsoft decided to shutdown YOUR machine.
Where do you think they get the codes they use?
The randomly generate them.
When one gets used to much, Microsoft blacklists it.
So come talk to me when it's YOURS that gets used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106414</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1265888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Microsoft Phone Support:</b> Describe what Marcellus Wallace looks like<br><b>Customer:</b> What?<br><b>Microsoft Phone Support:</b> Say 'what' again. Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare you<br><b>Customer:</b> WAT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Phone Support : Describe what Marcellus Wallace looks likeCustomer : What ? Microsoft Phone Support : Say 'what ' again .
Say 'what ' again , I dare you , I double dare youCustomer : WAT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Phone Support: Describe what Marcellus Wallace looks likeCustomer: What?Microsoft Phone Support: Say 'what' again.
Say 'what' again, I dare you, I double dare youCustomer: WAT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105842</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this is a stupid question.</title>
	<author>maxwells\_deamon</author>
	<datestamp>1265886180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They may also be firewalled away from everything not local and patched manually.  you still want to keep them up to date, but you control what and when they get these updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They may also be firewalled away from everything not local and patched manually .
you still want to keep them up to date , but you control what and when they get these updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may also be firewalled away from everything not local and patched manually.
you still want to keep them up to date, but you control what and when they get these updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102798</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this is a stupid question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you won't get the update for one thing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you wo n't get the update for one thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you won't get the update for one thing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102056</id>
	<title>I'm tired of paying money to rent software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Essentially we don't buy anything anymore. Everyone out there seems to have control of my computer but me. Yes I can spend the time and disable some of the functions but it's constant cold war of disabling the latest functions only to get hit with the next round. I want to use software not fight OSs. Also I'm tired of fighting software licensing, period. I'm not from the camp that wants free software I pay for every piece, except I do love some open source like Open Office. The point is why do I constantly have to deal updates? My bloody HP Printer driver constantly demands to be updated. I'm not stupid and I know they aren't releasing updates that fast. Many of pay thousands of dollars just for our desk top let alone software and yet everyone insists they should have control of our machines at all times. 10, 15, 20 years ago this was not the case. 15 years ago due to corruption issues I used to reinstall my OS and all software once a month. The machine ran better and the software crashed less. It took me a couple of hours and gave me a fresh machine each time. These days I live in terror of redoing a machine. I have a lot of software and at best we're talking days and generally it's weeks before I can get all the licenses squared away again. It's reached the point where I dread buying a new machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Essentially we do n't buy anything anymore .
Everyone out there seems to have control of my computer but me .
Yes I can spend the time and disable some of the functions but it 's constant cold war of disabling the latest functions only to get hit with the next round .
I want to use software not fight OSs .
Also I 'm tired of fighting software licensing , period .
I 'm not from the camp that wants free software I pay for every piece , except I do love some open source like Open Office .
The point is why do I constantly have to deal updates ?
My bloody HP Printer driver constantly demands to be updated .
I 'm not stupid and I know they are n't releasing updates that fast .
Many of pay thousands of dollars just for our desk top let alone software and yet everyone insists they should have control of our machines at all times .
10 , 15 , 20 years ago this was not the case .
15 years ago due to corruption issues I used to reinstall my OS and all software once a month .
The machine ran better and the software crashed less .
It took me a couple of hours and gave me a fresh machine each time .
These days I live in terror of redoing a machine .
I have a lot of software and at best we 're talking days and generally it 's weeks before I can get all the licenses squared away again .
It 's reached the point where I dread buying a new machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Essentially we don't buy anything anymore.
Everyone out there seems to have control of my computer but me.
Yes I can spend the time and disable some of the functions but it's constant cold war of disabling the latest functions only to get hit with the next round.
I want to use software not fight OSs.
Also I'm tired of fighting software licensing, period.
I'm not from the camp that wants free software I pay for every piece, except I do love some open source like Open Office.
The point is why do I constantly have to deal updates?
My bloody HP Printer driver constantly demands to be updated.
I'm not stupid and I know they aren't releasing updates that fast.
Many of pay thousands of dollars just for our desk top let alone software and yet everyone insists they should have control of our machines at all times.
10, 15, 20 years ago this was not the case.
15 years ago due to corruption issues I used to reinstall my OS and all software once a month.
The machine ran better and the software crashed less.
It took me a couple of hours and gave me a fresh machine each time.
These days I live in terror of redoing a machine.
I have a lot of software and at best we're talking days and generally it's weeks before I can get all the licenses squared away again.
It's reached the point where I dread buying a new machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101832</id>
	<title>Bah</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1265914980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows would be so much better without Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows would be so much better without Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows would be so much better without Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102974</id>
	<title>Re:Really bad strategy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that's not what happens. When a machine is marked as 'non-genuine' it's stops receiving WGA updates; security updates are still applied. Just because a windows box is 'illegal' doesn't stop it from being added to the 'Windows Zombies' statistic, which is bad PR for M$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that 's not what happens .
When a machine is marked as 'non-genuine ' it 's stops receiving WGA updates ; security updates are still applied .
Just because a windows box is 'illegal ' does n't stop it from being added to the 'Windows Zombies ' statistic , which is bad PR for M $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that's not what happens.
When a machine is marked as 'non-genuine' it's stops receiving WGA updates; security updates are still applied.
Just because a windows box is 'illegal' doesn't stop it from being added to the 'Windows Zombies' statistic, which is bad PR for M$.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105100</id>
	<title>I wish corporation IT departments....</title>
	<author>seanvaandering</author>
	<datestamp>1265883660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...wouldn't be so damn retarded.</p><p>Last place I worked, they placed the "Genuine Advantage" sticker with the activation key right on the outside of the computer.  This place had THOUSANDS of computers.  Want to figure how many activation keys someone grabbed before quitting their job?</p><p>Makes me shake my head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...would n't be so damn retarded.Last place I worked , they placed the " Genuine Advantage " sticker with the activation key right on the outside of the computer .
This place had THOUSANDS of computers .
Want to figure how many activation keys someone grabbed before quitting their job ? Makes me shake my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...wouldn't be so damn retarded.Last place I worked, they placed the "Genuine Advantage" sticker with the activation key right on the outside of the computer.
This place had THOUSANDS of computers.
Want to figure how many activation keys someone grabbed before quitting their job?Makes me shake my head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102726</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true because I made it up.  I made it up because it's true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true because I made it up .
I made it up because it 's true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true because I made it up.
I made it up because it's true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108080</id>
	<title>Re:wow</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265896500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i've been reading and posting here a long time, and i don't remember anyone coming right out and saying "microsoft employee here"</p></div><p>Well, I am a Microsoft employee, and it's not the first or the second time I mention that in the text of the comment. There's also a disclaimer to that extent in my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. profile, though it seems that hardly anyone bothers to see that.</p><p>There are a few others - in all cases the only reason I know is because they "came out" in the same way. E.g. <a href="http://slashdot.org/~Foredecker" title="slashdot.org">here</a> [slashdot.org] is another Microsoftie slashdotter, who often comments on MS-related topics.</p><p>No idea how many more don't ever bother mentioning it, or steer away from any discussions where it's of any relevance outright. After all, Slashdot isn't a dedicated "we hate MS" site - it has discussions on all kinds of topics, and the fact that one works at Microsoft can be of no (or very distant) relevance to most of them. Ultimately, we're just people. Many (of those I know personally, more than half) are geeks to some extent. Some are very stereotypical geeks. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few had their Slashdot accounts before they came to work at MS (I've had mine for 5 years before that).</p><p>Furthermore, don't be surprised to get a question, or even a useful advice, on Linux (or some other FOSS thing) from a Microsoftie. I dual-boot Win7 and Ubuntu at home, for one, and I used to run a FreeBSD box as a router; I know at least one other guy in my team who does the same with Debian. As geeks do, we evaluate and use things based on technical merit, not on brand loyalty. I certainly want our brand to compete and win on technical merit, though (and, as a developer, I do what I can to further that goal).</p><p>Of course, in those cases with Linux/FOSS posts, you're also not very likely to see the post start with "I'm a Microsoft employee<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...", so you'd probably never know. It can be quite ironic, though, to post something pro-Linux (lately also pro-Google) in reply to a clear troll, or to a factually incorrect statement, and then have a passer-by pat you on the back for "fighting the evil Microsoft".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 've been reading and posting here a long time , and i do n't remember anyone coming right out and saying " microsoft employee here " Well , I am a Microsoft employee , and it 's not the first or the second time I mention that in the text of the comment .
There 's also a disclaimer to that extent in my / .
profile , though it seems that hardly anyone bothers to see that.There are a few others - in all cases the only reason I know is because they " came out " in the same way .
E.g. here [ slashdot.org ] is another Microsoftie slashdotter , who often comments on MS-related topics.No idea how many more do n't ever bother mentioning it , or steer away from any discussions where it 's of any relevance outright .
After all , Slashdot is n't a dedicated " we hate MS " site - it has discussions on all kinds of topics , and the fact that one works at Microsoft can be of no ( or very distant ) relevance to most of them .
Ultimately , we 're just people .
Many ( of those I know personally , more than half ) are geeks to some extent .
Some are very stereotypical geeks .
I would n't be surprised if quite a few had their Slashdot accounts before they came to work at MS ( I 've had mine for 5 years before that ) .Furthermore , do n't be surprised to get a question , or even a useful advice , on Linux ( or some other FOSS thing ) from a Microsoftie .
I dual-boot Win7 and Ubuntu at home , for one , and I used to run a FreeBSD box as a router ; I know at least one other guy in my team who does the same with Debian .
As geeks do , we evaluate and use things based on technical merit , not on brand loyalty .
I certainly want our brand to compete and win on technical merit , though ( and , as a developer , I do what I can to further that goal ) .Of course , in those cases with Linux/FOSS posts , you 're also not very likely to see the post start with " I 'm a Microsoft employee ... " , so you 'd probably never know .
It can be quite ironic , though , to post something pro-Linux ( lately also pro-Google ) in reply to a clear troll , or to a factually incorrect statement , and then have a passer-by pat you on the back for " fighting the evil Microsoft " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i've been reading and posting here a long time, and i don't remember anyone coming right out and saying "microsoft employee here"Well, I am a Microsoft employee, and it's not the first or the second time I mention that in the text of the comment.
There's also a disclaimer to that extent in my /.
profile, though it seems that hardly anyone bothers to see that.There are a few others - in all cases the only reason I know is because they "came out" in the same way.
E.g. here [slashdot.org] is another Microsoftie slashdotter, who often comments on MS-related topics.No idea how many more don't ever bother mentioning it, or steer away from any discussions where it's of any relevance outright.
After all, Slashdot isn't a dedicated "we hate MS" site - it has discussions on all kinds of topics, and the fact that one works at Microsoft can be of no (or very distant) relevance to most of them.
Ultimately, we're just people.
Many (of those I know personally, more than half) are geeks to some extent.
Some are very stereotypical geeks.
I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few had their Slashdot accounts before they came to work at MS (I've had mine for 5 years before that).Furthermore, don't be surprised to get a question, or even a useful advice, on Linux (or some other FOSS thing) from a Microsoftie.
I dual-boot Win7 and Ubuntu at home, for one, and I used to run a FreeBSD box as a router; I know at least one other guy in my team who does the same with Debian.
As geeks do, we evaluate and use things based on technical merit, not on brand loyalty.
I certainly want our brand to compete and win on technical merit, though (and, as a developer, I do what I can to further that goal).Of course, in those cases with Linux/FOSS posts, you're also not very likely to see the post start with "I'm a Microsoft employee ...", so you'd probably never know.
It can be quite ironic, though, to post something pro-Linux (lately also pro-Google) in reply to a clear troll, or to a factually incorrect statement, and then have a passer-by pat you on the back for "fighting the evil Microsoft".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103878</id>
	<title>Get a Mac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265878800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple, OTOH, never gets too excited about pirated software. In fact there's very little pirated versions of OS X, because people just copy the install disks and pass them around.</p><p>Why, you ask? Because they make most of their money on their hardware and peripherals.</p><p>Yet another reason that Apple clones would be a *very* bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple , OTOH , never gets too excited about pirated software .
In fact there 's very little pirated versions of OS X , because people just copy the install disks and pass them around.Why , you ask ?
Because they make most of their money on their hardware and peripherals.Yet another reason that Apple clones would be a * very * bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple, OTOH, never gets too excited about pirated software.
In fact there's very little pirated versions of OS X, because people just copy the install disks and pass them around.Why, you ask?
Because they make most of their money on their hardware and peripherals.Yet another reason that Apple clones would be a *very* bad idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103670</id>
	<title>Re:Just going to annoy legit customers</title>
	<author>Alcimedes</author>
	<datestamp>1265921160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the info, I'll check on converting it.  The machine isn't my primary machine by any stretch, and at the end of the day, it's the only OS that needs to phone home in order to function.</p><p>I guess one admins feature is another admins annoyance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the info , I 'll check on converting it .
The machine is n't my primary machine by any stretch , and at the end of the day , it 's the only OS that needs to phone home in order to function.I guess one admins feature is another admins annoyance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the info, I'll check on converting it.
The machine isn't my primary machine by any stretch, and at the end of the day, it's the only OS that needs to phone home in order to function.I guess one admins feature is another admins annoyance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31112486</id>
	<title>Re:Can it be avoided?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265987940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple years ago I used to think this was a feasible way to avoid the installation of WGA on XP, but it's not. If you choose to ignore the WGA update, the system doesn't honor that and still presents the update every time you run windows update. Even if you meticulously opt out during every update, WGA will still eventually silently install itself, and you may not realize it until you scroll through your list of updates and see it. You may also get it in a service pack with no way to avoid it.</p><p>I've seen it happen over a dozen times. I'm not sure why it happens this way, but I eventually just assumed Microsoft lied in their WGA press release and KB articles, cracked it, and got on with my life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple years ago I used to think this was a feasible way to avoid the installation of WGA on XP , but it 's not .
If you choose to ignore the WGA update , the system does n't honor that and still presents the update every time you run windows update .
Even if you meticulously opt out during every update , WGA will still eventually silently install itself , and you may not realize it until you scroll through your list of updates and see it .
You may also get it in a service pack with no way to avoid it.I 've seen it happen over a dozen times .
I 'm not sure why it happens this way , but I eventually just assumed Microsoft lied in their WGA press release and KB articles , cracked it , and got on with my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple years ago I used to think this was a feasible way to avoid the installation of WGA on XP, but it's not.
If you choose to ignore the WGA update, the system doesn't honor that and still presents the update every time you run windows update.
Even if you meticulously opt out during every update, WGA will still eventually silently install itself, and you may not realize it until you scroll through your list of updates and see it.
You may also get it in a service pack with no way to avoid it.I've seen it happen over a dozen times.
I'm not sure why it happens this way, but I eventually just assumed Microsoft lied in their WGA press release and KB articles, cracked it, and got on with my life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102132</id>
	<title>Re:So what do they do</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1265916120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you please be so kind as to post your name, address and phone number, please?  Oh, and leave your keys under the mat.
<p>
 All the people who made products you may or may not have in your house just want to stop by once a quarter to make sure they get paid for what they produce.  You can't just expect them to do nothing and hope that you'll be nice and pay them.  Those books you picked up at the "clearing out old stuff event" at the library?  The authors deserve to get paid for what they produce.  Representatives for Mr. King will be over shortly to conduct an audit.  If you are found to be out of compliance, they will rip out all but the first chapter.  You can use the 'downgraded' copy to decide if you want to make a full purchase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you please be so kind as to post your name , address and phone number , please ?
Oh , and leave your keys under the mat .
All the people who made products you may or may not have in your house just want to stop by once a quarter to make sure they get paid for what they produce .
You ca n't just expect them to do nothing and hope that you 'll be nice and pay them .
Those books you picked up at the " clearing out old stuff event " at the library ?
The authors deserve to get paid for what they produce .
Representatives for Mr. King will be over shortly to conduct an audit .
If you are found to be out of compliance , they will rip out all but the first chapter .
You can use the 'downgraded ' copy to decide if you want to make a full purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you please be so kind as to post your name, address and phone number, please?
Oh, and leave your keys under the mat.
All the people who made products you may or may not have in your house just want to stop by once a quarter to make sure they get paid for what they produce.
You can't just expect them to do nothing and hope that you'll be nice and pay them.
Those books you picked up at the "clearing out old stuff event" at the library?
The authors deserve to get paid for what they produce.
Representatives for Mr. King will be over shortly to conduct an audit.
If you are found to be out of compliance, they will rip out all but the first chapter.
You can use the 'downgraded' copy to decide if you want to make a full purchase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102406</id>
	<title>Re:Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1265917020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahhh, What do you recommend for a small to mid size company using Windows clients, who needs network authentication?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhh , What do you recommend for a small to mid size company using Windows clients , who needs network authentication ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhh, What do you recommend for a small to mid size company using Windows clients, who needs network authentication?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102622</id>
	<title>Much ado about nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
* The update is voluntary.
* They're doing a better job than they did with XP.
* 32\% of all counterfeit Win machines have malware.

See <a href="http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/watu.asp" title="winsupersite.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/watu.asp</a> [winsupersite.com] or <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1759&amp;tag=col1;post-5242" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1759&amp;tag=col1;post-5242</a> [zdnet.com] for more information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* The update is voluntary .
* They 're doing a better job than they did with XP .
* 32 \ % of all counterfeit Win machines have malware .
See http : //www.winsupersite.com/win7/watu.asp [ winsupersite.com ] or http : //blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/ ? p = 1759&amp;tag = col1 ; post-5242 [ zdnet.com ] for more information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
* The update is voluntary.
* They're doing a better job than they did with XP.
* 32\% of all counterfeit Win machines have malware.
See http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/watu.asp [winsupersite.com] or http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1759&amp;tag=col1;post-5242 [zdnet.com] for more information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102828</id>
	<title>Typical anti-MSFT FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>then your system will be 'downgraded' to 'non-genuine' status until you take steps to obtain what Microsoft considers to be an authentic, validated, Windows 7 license.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... KB71033... is scheduled to deploy to the manual downloading 'Genuine Microsoft Software' site on February 16, and start pushing out automatically through the Windows Update environment on February 23.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... [F]or Microsoft to assert that they have the right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner &mdash; declaring their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time &mdash; is rather staggering."</i> </p><p>In what way are the systems downgraded?  The wallpaper is changed to a blank wallpaper, it gets watermarked with the "This copy of Windows is not genuine" message, and...nothing else.  Wow...that's pretty hard core.  Here it is straight from the horse's mouth:</p><p><b>It is important to know that the customer will see no reduced functionality in their copy of Windows &ndash; a customer&rsquo;s applications work as expected, and access to personal information is unchanged. The Update will run periodic validations (initially every 90 days). During validation, Windows will download the latest &lsquo;signatures&rsquo; that are used to identify new activation exploits &ndash; much like an anti-virus service. When tampering, disabling, or missing licensing files are discovered, the WAT Update runs a check and repair weekly to ensure that the licensing files are properly repaired. </b> </p><p>If you thought that your Windows install was legit, you still keep all of your functionality, minus the wallpaper.  Then you get it sorted out.  If you were knowingly using an activation hack, you're still getting something for nothing.  You're just getting your nose rubbed in it more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then your system will be 'downgraded ' to 'non-genuine ' status until you take steps to obtain what Microsoft considers to be an authentic , validated , Windows 7 license .
... KB71033... is scheduled to deploy to the manual downloading 'Genuine Microsoft Software ' site on February 16 , and start pushing out automatically through the Windows Update environment on February 23 .
... [ F ] or Microsoft to assert that they have the right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner    declaring their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time    is rather staggering .
" In what way are the systems downgraded ?
The wallpaper is changed to a blank wallpaper , it gets watermarked with the " This copy of Windows is not genuine " message , and...nothing else .
Wow...that 's pretty hard core .
Here it is straight from the horse 's mouth : It is important to know that the customer will see no reduced functionality in their copy of Windows    a customer    s applications work as expected , and access to personal information is unchanged .
The Update will run periodic validations ( initially every 90 days ) .
During validation , Windows will download the latest    signatures    that are used to identify new activation exploits    much like an anti-virus service .
When tampering , disabling , or missing licensing files are discovered , the WAT Update runs a check and repair weekly to ensure that the licensing files are properly repaired .
If you thought that your Windows install was legit , you still keep all of your functionality , minus the wallpaper .
Then you get it sorted out .
If you were knowingly using an activation hack , you 're still getting something for nothing .
You 're just getting your nose rubbed in it more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then your system will be 'downgraded' to 'non-genuine' status until you take steps to obtain what Microsoft considers to be an authentic, validated, Windows 7 license.
... KB71033... is scheduled to deploy to the manual downloading 'Genuine Microsoft Software' site on February 16, and start pushing out automatically through the Windows Update environment on February 23.
... [F]or Microsoft to assert that they have the right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner — declaring their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time — is rather staggering.
" In what way are the systems downgraded?
The wallpaper is changed to a blank wallpaper, it gets watermarked with the "This copy of Windows is not genuine" message, and...nothing else.
Wow...that's pretty hard core.
Here it is straight from the horse's mouth:It is important to know that the customer will see no reduced functionality in their copy of Windows – a customer’s applications work as expected, and access to personal information is unchanged.
The Update will run periodic validations (initially every 90 days).
During validation, Windows will download the latest ‘signatures’ that are used to identify new activation exploits – much like an anti-virus service.
When tampering, disabling, or missing licensing files are discovered, the WAT Update runs a check and repair weekly to ensure that the licensing files are properly repaired.
If you thought that your Windows install was legit, you still keep all of your functionality, minus the wallpaper.
Then you get it sorted out.
If you were knowingly using an activation hack, you're still getting something for nothing.
You're just getting your nose rubbed in it more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103694</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>Leomania</author>
	<datestamp>1265921280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not as if there's no alternative if this happens. Pop in your live CD/DVD of a Linux distro, most people would be back online. Your data on the FAT32/NTFS filesystems can be read from within the Linux environment. Maybe your proprietary programs aren't there to access some of the data, but that's not blocking your communications. Those still forced to use dialup with their internal Winmodems, yes, their communications would be impacted. I suspect there are more people still forced to use dialup than we'd want in these "modern times".</p><p>Given how fast the geeks would get broadband-connected friends and family back online, I think you should be more concerned about the big ISPs being controlled. That's much more universal than just controlling ~85-90\% of the PCs running a particular operating system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not as if there 's no alternative if this happens .
Pop in your live CD/DVD of a Linux distro , most people would be back online .
Your data on the FAT32/NTFS filesystems can be read from within the Linux environment .
Maybe your proprietary programs are n't there to access some of the data , but that 's not blocking your communications .
Those still forced to use dialup with their internal Winmodems , yes , their communications would be impacted .
I suspect there are more people still forced to use dialup than we 'd want in these " modern times " .Given how fast the geeks would get broadband-connected friends and family back online , I think you should be more concerned about the big ISPs being controlled .
That 's much more universal than just controlling ~ 85-90 \ % of the PCs running a particular operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not as if there's no alternative if this happens.
Pop in your live CD/DVD of a Linux distro, most people would be back online.
Your data on the FAT32/NTFS filesystems can be read from within the Linux environment.
Maybe your proprietary programs aren't there to access some of the data, but that's not blocking your communications.
Those still forced to use dialup with their internal Winmodems, yes, their communications would be impacted.
I suspect there are more people still forced to use dialup than we'd want in these "modern times".Given how fast the geeks would get broadband-connected friends and family back online, I think you should be more concerned about the big ISPs being controlled.
That's much more universal than just controlling ~85-90\% of the PCs running a particular operating system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102236</id>
	<title>Re:News flash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft users have been and will always be slaves to the evil empire.</p></div><p>As a committed Microsoft slave, who recently bought an iPhone, I have to say I for one welcome my new Apple overlords!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft users have been and will always be slaves to the evil empire.As a committed Microsoft slave , who recently bought an iPhone , I have to say I for one welcome my new Apple overlords !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft users have been and will always be slaves to the evil empire.As a committed Microsoft slave, who recently bought an iPhone, I have to say I for one welcome my new Apple overlords!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103400</id>
	<title>It's all in the name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265920200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's obvious the Microsoft thinks all of it's customers are pirates. This is humorous considering many past Windows and Office "features" were "borrowed" on the sue us if can licensing. The Windows Windows Activation Technologies (tWAT) shows exactly what M$ thinks about Windows users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's obvious the Microsoft thinks all of it 's customers are pirates .
This is humorous considering many past Windows and Office " features " were " borrowed " on the sue us if can licensing .
The Windows Windows Activation Technologies ( tWAT ) shows exactly what M $ thinks about Windows users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's obvious the Microsoft thinks all of it's customers are pirates.
This is humorous considering many past Windows and Office "features" were "borrowed" on the sue us if can licensing.
The Windows Windows Activation Technologies (tWAT) shows exactly what M$ thinks about Windows users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102140</id>
	<title>I say just let 'em do it</title>
	<author>spikenerd</author>
	<datestamp>1265916180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we keep making such a loud noise every time this company starts to do something so utterly blatantly stupid, they'll keep half-way back-tracking before it makes it to the consumers, and they will continue to endure this company forever. I'm getting really tired of hearing people say things like "yeah they're a little evil, but I like their products", or "they're not really that evil--it's not worth the pain of switching". I say let's just keep quiet about it this time and let the Windows users dawn the Emperor's new clothes. C'mon, it'll be fun!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we keep making such a loud noise every time this company starts to do something so utterly blatantly stupid , they 'll keep half-way back-tracking before it makes it to the consumers , and they will continue to endure this company forever .
I 'm getting really tired of hearing people say things like " yeah they 're a little evil , but I like their products " , or " they 're not really that evil--it 's not worth the pain of switching " .
I say let 's just keep quiet about it this time and let the Windows users dawn the Emperor 's new clothes .
C'mon , it 'll be fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we keep making such a loud noise every time this company starts to do something so utterly blatantly stupid, they'll keep half-way back-tracking before it makes it to the consumers, and they will continue to endure this company forever.
I'm getting really tired of hearing people say things like "yeah they're a little evil, but I like their products", or "they're not really that evil--it's not worth the pain of switching".
I say let's just keep quiet about it this time and let the Windows users dawn the Emperor's new clothes.
C'mon, it'll be fun!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772</id>
	<title>So what do they do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[F]or Microsoft to assert that they have the right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner -- declaring their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time -- is rather staggering</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yes, how horrible that MS take steps to get paid for what they produce. I take it MS is supposed to do nothing and hope that you'll be nice and pay them?<br> <br>Steps like these need to be taken because, well, people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ F ] or Microsoft to assert that they have the right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner -- declaring their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time -- is rather staggering Yes , how horrible that MS take steps to get paid for what they produce .
I take it MS is supposed to do nothing and hope that you 'll be nice and pay them ?
Steps like these need to be taken because , well , people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[F]or Microsoft to assert that they have the right to treat ordinary PC-using consumers in this manner -- declaring their systems to be non-genuine and downgrading them at any time -- is rather staggering
Yes, how horrible that MS take steps to get paid for what they produce.
I take it MS is supposed to do nothing and hope that you'll be nice and pay them?
Steps like these need to be taken because, well, people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103410</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265920260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  For now?  And it is selected by default when you run Windows update, so casual users will not deselect it.<br>2. I'll believe it when I see it.<br>3. Most people don't know they've been hoodwinked?  I'd say most people installed the pirated copy on purpose.<br>4. This is pure MS FUD.  Most pirated copies do NOT contain malicious code.  They are redistributed technet ISOs with a stolen corp key.<br>5.<br>6. So most of your pirates won't ever see this, or can easily bypass it with a couple WSUS registry entries?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
For now ?
And it is selected by default when you run Windows update , so casual users will not deselect it.2 .
I 'll believe it when I see it.3 .
Most people do n't know they 've been hoodwinked ?
I 'd say most people installed the pirated copy on purpose.4 .
This is pure MS FUD .
Most pirated copies do NOT contain malicious code .
They are redistributed technet ISOs with a stolen corp key.5.6 .
So most of your pirates wo n't ever see this , or can easily bypass it with a couple WSUS registry entries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
For now?
And it is selected by default when you run Windows update, so casual users will not deselect it.2.
I'll believe it when I see it.3.
Most people don't know they've been hoodwinked?
I'd say most people installed the pirated copy on purpose.4.
This is pure MS FUD.
Most pirated copies do NOT contain malicious code.
They are redistributed technet ISOs with a stolen corp key.5.6.
So most of your pirates won't ever see this, or can easily bypass it with a couple WSUS registry entries?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102176</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>mystikkman</author>
	<datestamp>1265916300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, they can basically disable/cripple anyone's computer for any reason without notice.</p></div><p>The computer is not cripped, all you get is notifications and loss of wallpaper and some always on text on the  desktop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , they can basically disable/cripple anyone 's computer for any reason without notice.The computer is not cripped , all you get is notifications and loss of wallpaper and some always on text on the desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, they can basically disable/cripple anyone's computer for any reason without notice.The computer is not cripped, all you get is notifications and loss of wallpaper and some always on text on the  desktop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108318</id>
	<title>Re:Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1265898120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm talking between 1 and 500 users.  Anything over 30 users becomes a nightmare to Administer without network control.  <br> A large number of these companies work on government contracts requiring a certain level of monitored security.<br>
We currently have over 30 employees and have a computer to user ratio of almost 4 to 1.  Most of our employees will be using 5 to 10 client computers a day and connected to 3 or more file servers. It is much easier to maintain and monitor user access if this is being done on a centralized server.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm talking between 1 and 500 users .
Anything over 30 users becomes a nightmare to Administer without network control .
A large number of these companies work on government contracts requiring a certain level of monitored security .
We currently have over 30 employees and have a computer to user ratio of almost 4 to 1 .
Most of our employees will be using 5 to 10 client computers a day and connected to 3 or more file servers .
It is much easier to maintain and monitor user access if this is being done on a centralized server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm talking between 1 and 500 users.
Anything over 30 users becomes a nightmare to Administer without network control.
A large number of these companies work on government contracts requiring a certain level of monitored security.
We currently have over 30 employees and have a computer to user ratio of almost 4 to 1.
Most of our employees will be using 5 to 10 client computers a day and connected to 3 or more file servers.
It is much easier to maintain and monitor user access if this is being done on a centralized server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103340</id>
	<title>Re:Just going to annoy legit customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265919960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Anyone mildly familiar with Windows 7 volume licensing should know this.</p></div></blockquote><p>All I can figure is that you're one of the upper-level MS sales execs astroturfing Slashdot.  As far as I can tell, *NO ONE* outside of a few people at Redmond know what all of the license schemes for the various Microsoft products are.</p><p>Nothing made me more angry than trying to figure out Visual Studio/MSDN licenses a couple of years back.  No info from Microsoft, no info from resellers, basically had to "guess" at it myself until I was vaguely convinced our installation would be legal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone mildly familiar with Windows 7 volume licensing should know this.All I can figure is that you 're one of the upper-level MS sales execs astroturfing Slashdot .
As far as I can tell , * NO ONE * outside of a few people at Redmond know what all of the license schemes for the various Microsoft products are.Nothing made me more angry than trying to figure out Visual Studio/MSDN licenses a couple of years back .
No info from Microsoft , no info from resellers , basically had to " guess " at it myself until I was vaguely convinced our installation would be legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone mildly familiar with Windows 7 volume licensing should know this.All I can figure is that you're one of the upper-level MS sales execs astroturfing Slashdot.
As far as I can tell, *NO ONE* outside of a few people at Redmond know what all of the license schemes for the various Microsoft products are.Nothing made me more angry than trying to figure out Visual Studio/MSDN licenses a couple of years back.
No info from Microsoft, no info from resellers, basically had to "guess" at it myself until I was vaguely convinced our installation would be legal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850</id>
	<title>News flash</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1265915100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you buy a computer with windows on it you own the hardware. You never own the software. You license it on the condition that you agree to the EULA. Microsoft's EULA states that you give up all rights, they are not accountable for anything.</p><p>Microsoft users have been and will always be slaves to the evil empire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you buy a computer with windows on it you own the hardware .
You never own the software .
You license it on the condition that you agree to the EULA .
Microsoft 's EULA states that you give up all rights , they are not accountable for anything.Microsoft users have been and will always be slaves to the evil empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you buy a computer with windows on it you own the hardware.
You never own the software.
You license it on the condition that you agree to the EULA.
Microsoft's EULA states that you give up all rights, they are not accountable for anything.Microsoft users have been and will always be slaves to the evil empire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102438</id>
	<title>Re:What if MS go bust?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government Bailout because MS is "too big to fail"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government Bailout because MS is " too big to fail "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government Bailout because MS is "too big to fail"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101874</id>
	<title>OEM copies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every "pirate" copy of Windows 7 I've run across is a full OEM copy, which doesn't ask for a key, though I do think they activate. How exactly are they going to deal with those? Kill all the copies from that particular OEM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every " pirate " copy of Windows 7 I 've run across is a full OEM copy , which does n't ask for a key , though I do think they activate .
How exactly are they going to deal with those ?
Kill all the copies from that particular OEM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every "pirate" copy of Windows 7 I've run across is a full OEM copy, which doesn't ask for a key, though I do think they activate.
How exactly are they going to deal with those?
Kill all the copies from that particular OEM?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104504</id>
	<title>Re:Just going to annoy legit customers</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1265881380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So instead of connecting to your VPN four times a year, you'll put yourself in a position of almost certainly getting blacklisted? That makes sense."</p><p>Yes, it does make sense. I'd rather not have the security hole of an activation/validation check. Some hacker is going to eventually figure out a way to exploit this (or maybe I've already got the exploit and am waiting on the right price from the right bidder) and EVERY WINDOWS MACHINE IS FUCKED. It will be a non-stop DDoS against Microsoft when THE ENTIRE PLANET calls them.</p><p>Ahh, but of course you techie-types only take a very narrow view of things and can't see a bigger, more dangerous picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So instead of connecting to your VPN four times a year , you 'll put yourself in a position of almost certainly getting blacklisted ?
That makes sense .
" Yes , it does make sense .
I 'd rather not have the security hole of an activation/validation check .
Some hacker is going to eventually figure out a way to exploit this ( or maybe I 've already got the exploit and am waiting on the right price from the right bidder ) and EVERY WINDOWS MACHINE IS FUCKED .
It will be a non-stop DDoS against Microsoft when THE ENTIRE PLANET calls them.Ahh , but of course you techie-types only take a very narrow view of things and ca n't see a bigger , more dangerous picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So instead of connecting to your VPN four times a year, you'll put yourself in a position of almost certainly getting blacklisted?
That makes sense.
"Yes, it does make sense.
I'd rather not have the security hole of an activation/validation check.
Some hacker is going to eventually figure out a way to exploit this (or maybe I've already got the exploit and am waiting on the right price from the right bidder) and EVERY WINDOWS MACHINE IS FUCKED.
It will be a non-stop DDoS against Microsoft when THE ENTIRE PLANET calls them.Ahh, but of course you techie-types only take a very narrow view of things and can't see a bigger, more dangerous picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109546</id>
	<title>Re:Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>Anpheus</author>
	<datestamp>1265910180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would you recommend looking at for virtualization/clustering on Linux these days? XenServer or a particular distro with KVM? Management?</p><p>Just curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would you recommend looking at for virtualization/clustering on Linux these days ?
XenServer or a particular distro with KVM ?
Management ? Just curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would you recommend looking at for virtualization/clustering on Linux these days?
XenServer or a particular distro with KVM?
Management?Just curious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31138874</id>
	<title>A perfect prison removes the desire to escape</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266154380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject line above</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject line above</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject line above</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103734</id>
	<title>Re:Well that pretty much settles it for me.</title>
	<author>techhead79</author>
	<datestamp>1265921400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you could deal with WAT as well.</p></div><p>
You've upgraded through almost every version of Windows since Windows 3.1. Granted most of those were on different PCs as you purchased new PCs but the fact is you upgraded through countless versions of Windows almost every 3 or so years. If you've done that then why is having a monthly subscription to access your data all that different? If you can deal with upgrading your computer every 3 years then you can deal with paying a monthly subscription to stay current too. <br> <br>

See how that works...nice isn't it. As a customer you have a right to choose. Larger bloated companies have that right too but don't have that as an option. Wouldn't it be great if there were all these viruses out there in the world and people had to pay you a monthly subscription to survive. I mean they pay to goto the doctor once a year anyway...what's a monthly fee right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you could deal with WAT as well .
You 've upgraded through almost every version of Windows since Windows 3.1 .
Granted most of those were on different PCs as you purchased new PCs but the fact is you upgraded through countless versions of Windows almost every 3 or so years .
If you 've done that then why is having a monthly subscription to access your data all that different ?
If you can deal with upgrading your computer every 3 years then you can deal with paying a monthly subscription to stay current too .
See how that works...nice is n't it .
As a customer you have a right to choose .
Larger bloated companies have that right too but do n't have that as an option .
Would n't it be great if there were all these viruses out there in the world and people had to pay you a monthly subscription to survive .
I mean they pay to goto the doctor once a year anyway...what 's a monthly fee right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you could deal with WAT as well.
You've upgraded through almost every version of Windows since Windows 3.1.
Granted most of those were on different PCs as you purchased new PCs but the fact is you upgraded through countless versions of Windows almost every 3 or so years.
If you've done that then why is having a monthly subscription to access your data all that different?
If you can deal with upgrading your computer every 3 years then you can deal with paying a monthly subscription to stay current too.
See how that works...nice isn't it.
As a customer you have a right to choose.
Larger bloated companies have that right too but don't have that as an option.
Wouldn't it be great if there were all these viruses out there in the world and people had to pay you a monthly subscription to survive.
I mean they pay to goto the doctor once a year anyway...what's a monthly fee right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782</id>
	<title>Not news</title>
	<author>El Gigante de Justic</author>
	<datestamp>1265914860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how this is in any way news or shocking.  WAT = rebranded WGA.</p><p>The only major question I would have, is if it's only calling back every 90 days, how many false positives will it get from people doing major hardware upgrades over that three month span.  (I'm assuming it compares the system specs with the license key as WGA did to determine if it was actually the same computer or not)</p><p>And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how this is in any way news or shocking .
WAT = rebranded WGA.The only major question I would have , is if it 's only calling back every 90 days , how many false positives will it get from people doing major hardware upgrades over that three month span .
( I 'm assuming it compares the system specs with the license key as WGA did to determine if it was actually the same computer or not ) And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how this is in any way news or shocking.
WAT = rebranded WGA.The only major question I would have, is if it's only calling back every 90 days, how many false positives will it get from people doing major hardware upgrades over that three month span.
(I'm assuming it compares the system specs with the license key as WGA did to determine if it was actually the same computer or not)And at least they just downgrade you - they could instead just shut your system down for a suspected license violation and prevent any log-ins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103092</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265919000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should anyone care? It's not like windows is the only 'game' in town, there are alternatives if you don't like it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should anyone care ?
It 's not like windows is the only 'game ' in town , there are alternatives if you do n't like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should anyone care?
It's not like windows is the only 'game' in town, there are alternatives if you don't like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103260</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265919660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if terrorists took over microsoft and disabled every [windows] computer in America...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if terrorists took over microsoft and disabled every [ windows ] computer in America.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if terrorists took over microsoft and disabled every [windows] computer in America...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101818</id>
	<title>Allow me to call it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows Annoyance Technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows Annoyance Technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows Annoyance Technologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102250</id>
	<title>This sort of thing is why</title>
	<author>Thorkull</author>
	<datestamp>1265916600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love my Macs more and more every day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love my Macs more and more every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love my Macs more and more every day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103020</id>
	<title>Re:Cmon people...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right... this isn't any more disturbing than having your car send information to the cops every couple months to let them know if you've been speeding or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right... this is n't any more disturbing than having your car send information to the cops every couple months to let them know if you 've been speeding or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right... this isn't any more disturbing than having your car send information to the cops every couple months to let them know if you've been speeding or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105674</id>
	<title>Re:Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of which, according to NetCraft, there are about 49 MILLION.  25\% or so of the Internet.  It's fine to call them all crazy, but it sort of demeans the term, and makes it pretty much useless as an identifier, since millions of people think it's normal.</p><p>but it's good for whining about on Slashdot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of which , according to NetCraft , there are about 49 MILLION .
25 \ % or so of the Internet .
It 's fine to call them all crazy , but it sort of demeans the term , and makes it pretty much useless as an identifier , since millions of people think it 's normal.but it 's good for whining about on Slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of which, according to NetCraft, there are about 49 MILLION.
25\% or so of the Internet.
It's fine to call them all crazy, but it sort of demeans the term, and makes it pretty much useless as an identifier, since millions of people think it's normal.but it's good for whining about on Slashdot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103110</id>
	<title>Re:Just going to annoy legit customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265919060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... my machine will downgrade itself, make me hop on the VPN, revalidate etc.?</p></div><p>In honor of the the "search for network card drivers on the internet?" feature, the downgrade will disable all VPN features.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... my machine will downgrade itself , make me hop on the VPN , revalidate etc .
? In honor of the the " search for network card drivers on the internet ?
" feature , the downgrade will disable all VPN features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... my machine will downgrade itself, make me hop on the VPN, revalidate etc.
?In honor of the the "search for network card drivers on the internet?
" feature, the downgrade will disable all VPN features.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104688</id>
	<title>Re:Well that pretty much settles it for me.</title>
	<author>DrEldarion</author>
	<datestamp>1265882040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do know that XP does the exact same thing with WGA, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know that XP does the exact same thing with WGA , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know that XP does the exact same thing with WGA, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104112</id>
	<title>Re:Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1265879640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Damn near any linux server distribution.  Personally, I'd go with either Red Hat / Fedora, or some flavor of Debian.
<br>
2) Damn near any LDAP implementation for linux.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache\_Directory\_Server" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache\_Directory\_Server</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Hat\_Directory\_Server" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Hat\_Directory\_Server</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDS" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDS</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLDAP" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLDAP</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<br>
After that, just sit back, crack a beer open, and congratulate yourself for simultaneously saving some cash and slipping out of the MS licensing noose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Damn near any linux server distribution .
Personally , I 'd go with either Red Hat / Fedora , or some flavor of Debian .
2 ) Damn near any LDAP implementation for linux .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache \ _Directory \ _Server [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red \ _Hat \ _Directory \ _Server [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDS [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLDAP [ wikipedia.org ] After that , just sit back , crack a beer open , and congratulate yourself for simultaneously saving some cash and slipping out of the MS licensing noose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Damn near any linux server distribution.
Personally, I'd go with either Red Hat / Fedora, or some flavor of Debian.
2) Damn near any LDAP implementation for linux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache\_Directory\_Server [wikipedia.org] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Hat\_Directory\_Server [wikipedia.org] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDS [wikipedia.org] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLDAP [wikipedia.org] 

After that, just sit back, crack a beer open, and congratulate yourself for simultaneously saving some cash and slipping out of the MS licensing noose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104196</id>
	<title>Re:News flash</title>
	<author>Akita24</author>
	<datestamp>1265879940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't agree to their terms then you can:

1) Quit using the software.
2) Take them to court.

Option #1 is available to most people.

Option #2 is only available to people who have pockets deep enough to fight Microsoft's bazillion-dollar legal machine and the years, decades or lifetimes required to do so. I posit that the handful of people capable of taking Microsodt to court over their EULA don't need to because they play golf with Ballmer and Gates. The rest of us, outside of interesting theiry are completely and totally fsck'd. The RealWorld is not an ivory tower. Google RIAA and extortion for a small example of legal theory vs practice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't agree to their terms then you can : 1 ) Quit using the software .
2 ) Take them to court .
Option # 1 is available to most people .
Option # 2 is only available to people who have pockets deep enough to fight Microsoft 's bazillion-dollar legal machine and the years , decades or lifetimes required to do so .
I posit that the handful of people capable of taking Microsodt to court over their EULA do n't need to because they play golf with Ballmer and Gates .
The rest of us , outside of interesting theiry are completely and totally fsck 'd .
The RealWorld is not an ivory tower .
Google RIAA and extortion for a small example of legal theory vs practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't agree to their terms then you can:

1) Quit using the software.
2) Take them to court.
Option #1 is available to most people.
Option #2 is only available to people who have pockets deep enough to fight Microsoft's bazillion-dollar legal machine and the years, decades or lifetimes required to do so.
I posit that the handful of people capable of taking Microsodt to court over their EULA don't need to because they play golf with Ballmer and Gates.
The rest of us, outside of interesting theiry are completely and totally fsck'd.
The RealWorld is not an ivory tower.
Google RIAA and extortion for a small example of legal theory vs practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102260</id>
	<title>Sounds risky</title>
	<author>CookedGryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1265916600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens if someone writes a virus which trips one of these MS indicators that an activation hack has been used, do they have a way to easily reverse decisions without user interaction? Sounds incredibly risky to me, a chance of taking out whole corporate networks on a false positive, lawsuits for lost revenue....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens if someone writes a virus which trips one of these MS indicators that an activation hack has been used , do they have a way to easily reverse decisions without user interaction ?
Sounds incredibly risky to me , a chance of taking out whole corporate networks on a false positive , lawsuits for lost revenue... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens if someone writes a virus which trips one of these MS indicators that an activation hack has been used, do they have a way to easily reverse decisions without user interaction?
Sounds incredibly risky to me, a chance of taking out whole corporate networks on a false positive, lawsuits for lost revenue....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102114</id>
	<title>Oh, sign me up for THAT!</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1265916060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To all the XP haters... <i>THIS</i> is why I will never upgrade.  No tangible benefits, a larger footprint, and now a wonderful, <i>I-never-would-have-expected-this-from-Microsoft!</i> update to remind you just who's system you're using.  Hint: not yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To all the XP haters... THIS is why I will never upgrade .
No tangible benefits , a larger footprint , and now a wonderful , I-never-would-have-expected-this-from-Microsoft !
update to remind you just who 's system you 're using .
Hint : not yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all the XP haters... THIS is why I will never upgrade.
No tangible benefits, a larger footprint, and now a wonderful, I-never-would-have-expected-this-from-Microsoft!
update to remind you just who's system you're using.
Hint: not yours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104136</id>
	<title>Win 7 Validations  spoils like forgotten leftovers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 update to regularly phone home to check for validation spoilage.</p><p>Does Microsoft really have a problem with Windows 7 validation some how going bad?</p><p>Even though your activated copy of windows 7 was previously valid its validation might somehow spoil.</p><p>Windows 7&rsquo;s validation must be like the leftovers lost in the back of the fridge?</p><p>So this update must be to protect you from the dangers of Windows 7 validation spoilage.</p><p>Everyone knows that using a computer with a spoiled validation would be like eating tainted leftovers.</p><p>VERY BAD for you!</p><p>I already see it coming 1 day it will arbitrarily decide that all our Windows 7 systems are suddenly invalid an all the PCs will downgrade.</p><p>Just to be safe I am getting some of those green Evert-Fresh vegetable Bags to keep my Windows 7 validations in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 update to regularly phone home to check for validation spoilage.Does Microsoft really have a problem with Windows 7 validation some how going bad ? Even though your activated copy of windows 7 was previously valid its validation might somehow spoil.Windows 7    s validation must be like the leftovers lost in the back of the fridge ? So this update must be to protect you from the dangers of Windows 7 validation spoilage.Everyone knows that using a computer with a spoiled validation would be like eating tainted leftovers.VERY BAD for you ! I already see it coming 1 day it will arbitrarily decide that all our Windows 7 systems are suddenly invalid an all the PCs will downgrade.Just to be safe I am getting some of those green Evert-Fresh vegetable Bags to keep my Windows 7 validations in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 update to regularly phone home to check for validation spoilage.Does Microsoft really have a problem with Windows 7 validation some how going bad?Even though your activated copy of windows 7 was previously valid its validation might somehow spoil.Windows 7’s validation must be like the leftovers lost in the back of the fridge?So this update must be to protect you from the dangers of Windows 7 validation spoilage.Everyone knows that using a computer with a spoiled validation would be like eating tainted leftovers.VERY BAD for you!I already see it coming 1 day it will arbitrarily decide that all our Windows 7 systems are suddenly invalid an all the PCs will downgrade.Just to be safe I am getting some of those green Evert-Fresh vegetable Bags to keep my Windows 7 validations in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103528</id>
	<title>Re:wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265920680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I figure all the time.  It's good business to keep track of your competitors.

Or, alternatively, it's always tempting to read the bad press about whatever you're working on, so you can set the record straight when people (invariably) misunderstand you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I figure all the time .
It 's good business to keep track of your competitors .
Or , alternatively , it 's always tempting to read the bad press about whatever you 're working on , so you can set the record straight when people ( invariably ) misunderstand you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figure all the time.
It's good business to keep track of your competitors.
Or, alternatively, it's always tempting to read the bad press about whatever you're working on, so you can set the record straight when people (invariably) misunderstand you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102660</id>
	<title>Re:Really bad strategy</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1265917740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When a machine gets marked as non-genuine, it stops receiving updates.</p></div><p>If it's anything like the issue I'm having now (gets marked as not genuine any time I'm not online), then it will stop only the optional updates.  Required/security updates will continue to go through.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a machine gets marked as non-genuine , it stops receiving updates.If it 's anything like the issue I 'm having now ( gets marked as not genuine any time I 'm not online ) , then it will stop only the optional updates .
Required/security updates will continue to go through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a machine gets marked as non-genuine, it stops receiving updates.If it's anything like the issue I'm having now (gets marked as not genuine any time I'm not online), then it will stop only the optional updates.
Required/security updates will continue to go through.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103676</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265921220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to post AC, but I'm at work.</p><p>1. Since 99\% of users will just 'update all', calling it voluntary is like calling wearing shoes outside voluntary.  While true, the vast, vast majority will do so regardless.<br>2. Point 2 kinda conflicts with point 3.  Constantly being annoyed IS reducing my use of the computer, but interrupting and slowing down my task.  This is a minor quibble, but just pointing out that the statement "functionality not reduced" is pretty interpretive.<br>3. Unless they bought the computer from a friend, or a store is doing illegal installations, I'd think most people will know if they're using a pirate version or not.  And if these annoyance popups come up, most people will NOT go out and buy a new copy of windows.  They will call the place they got said computer and say "fix it".  If a friend built the computer, rest assured that a hacked version without the annoyance will be installed.<br>4. What, malicious code isn't capable of running on legal versions?  Even after any security updates, give it a few weeks.<br>5. Bullshit.  How many companies have states this and proven to be lying?  And even if it's not currently identifiable, I'm sure an absolutely minor update pushed to the systems will make it so.  The fact that it's doing it AT ALL is the problem, the data it's sending is a side-note.  Because it's not currently used for evil purposes doesn't mean it won't be in the future by either Microsoft or some hacker using that opening.<br>6. Got no problems with this point, but this was directed at a specific person anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to post AC , but I 'm at work.1 .
Since 99 \ % of users will just 'update all ' , calling it voluntary is like calling wearing shoes outside voluntary .
While true , the vast , vast majority will do so regardless.2 .
Point 2 kinda conflicts with point 3 .
Constantly being annoyed IS reducing my use of the computer , but interrupting and slowing down my task .
This is a minor quibble , but just pointing out that the statement " functionality not reduced " is pretty interpretive.3 .
Unless they bought the computer from a friend , or a store is doing illegal installations , I 'd think most people will know if they 're using a pirate version or not .
And if these annoyance popups come up , most people will NOT go out and buy a new copy of windows .
They will call the place they got said computer and say " fix it " .
If a friend built the computer , rest assured that a hacked version without the annoyance will be installed.4 .
What , malicious code is n't capable of running on legal versions ?
Even after any security updates , give it a few weeks.5 .
Bullshit. How many companies have states this and proven to be lying ?
And even if it 's not currently identifiable , I 'm sure an absolutely minor update pushed to the systems will make it so .
The fact that it 's doing it AT ALL is the problem , the data it 's sending is a side-note .
Because it 's not currently used for evil purposes does n't mean it wo n't be in the future by either Microsoft or some hacker using that opening.6 .
Got no problems with this point , but this was directed at a specific person anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to post AC, but I'm at work.1.
Since 99\% of users will just 'update all', calling it voluntary is like calling wearing shoes outside voluntary.
While true, the vast, vast majority will do so regardless.2.
Point 2 kinda conflicts with point 3.
Constantly being annoyed IS reducing my use of the computer, but interrupting and slowing down my task.
This is a minor quibble, but just pointing out that the statement "functionality not reduced" is pretty interpretive.3.
Unless they bought the computer from a friend, or a store is doing illegal installations, I'd think most people will know if they're using a pirate version or not.
And if these annoyance popups come up, most people will NOT go out and buy a new copy of windows.
They will call the place they got said computer and say "fix it".
If a friend built the computer, rest assured that a hacked version without the annoyance will be installed.4.
What, malicious code isn't capable of running on legal versions?
Even after any security updates, give it a few weeks.5.
Bullshit.  How many companies have states this and proven to be lying?
And even if it's not currently identifiable, I'm sure an absolutely minor update pushed to the systems will make it so.
The fact that it's doing it AT ALL is the problem, the data it's sending is a side-note.
Because it's not currently used for evil purposes doesn't mean it won't be in the future by either Microsoft or some hacker using that opening.6.
Got no problems with this point, but this was directed at a specific person anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102536</id>
	<title>News flash</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1265917380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that clause in your EULA that states that if they cannot take away a certain right, by law, the rest of the EULA is still binding?</p><p>I wonder why they need that clause...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that clause in your EULA that states that if they can not take away a certain right , by law , the rest of the EULA is still binding ? I wonder why they need that clause.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that clause in your EULA that states that if they cannot take away a certain right, by law, the rest of the EULA is still binding?I wonder why they need that clause...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101730</id>
	<title>Now with Continuous Auditing! (aka surveillance)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>WAT? WATTF!<br> <br>

Like serial numbers, product keys, and activation before, automatic auditing like WGA is proving not to be as effective as Microsoft would like... this is surveillance plain and simple. Looks like I'm going to need to update my article on problems with non-free software... (<a href="http://trygnulinux.com/action/?q=node/65" title="trygnulinux.com">Free Software or: How I Learned...</a> [trygnulinux.com]).</htmltext>
<tokenext>WAT ?
WATTF ! Like serial numbers , product keys , and activation before , automatic auditing like WGA is proving not to be as effective as Microsoft would like... this is surveillance plain and simple .
Looks like I 'm going to need to update my article on problems with non-free software... ( Free Software or : How I Learned... [ trygnulinux.com ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WAT?
WATTF! 

Like serial numbers, product keys, and activation before, automatic auditing like WGA is proving not to be as effective as Microsoft would like... this is surveillance plain and simple.
Looks like I'm going to need to update my article on problems with non-free software... (Free Software or: How I Learned... [trygnulinux.com]).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103616</id>
	<title>Re:Blimey</title>
	<author>KillShill</author>
	<datestamp>1265921040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do stuff like this.</p><p>They just have a very expensive DRM dongle, in the form of App&pound;e hardware and also a massive army of lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do stuff like this.They just have a very expensive DRM dongle , in the form of App   e hardware and also a massive army of lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do stuff like this.They just have a very expensive DRM dongle, in the form of App£e hardware and also a massive army of lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106946</id>
	<title>Re:So what do they do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265890860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft seems to have made it pretty far with CD keys and with XP being easily hacked out of validation. How many companies are seriously going to risk running pirated versions of Windows? This isn't about piracy it's about getting users comfortable with Microsoft pretty much owning your PC. Wait for the Windows: FOR RENT edition. This is just a precursor for things to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft seems to have made it pretty far with CD keys and with XP being easily hacked out of validation .
How many companies are seriously going to risk running pirated versions of Windows ?
This is n't about piracy it 's about getting users comfortable with Microsoft pretty much owning your PC .
Wait for the Windows : FOR RENT edition .
This is just a precursor for things to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft seems to have made it pretty far with CD keys and with XP being easily hacked out of validation.
How many companies are seriously going to risk running pirated versions of Windows?
This isn't about piracy it's about getting users comfortable with Microsoft pretty much owning your PC.
Wait for the Windows: FOR RENT edition.
This is just a precursor for things to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101778</id>
	<title>Not affected.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Neither should you be. Linux and BSD are yours. Truly yours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither should you be .
Linux and BSD are yours .
Truly yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither should you be.
Linux and BSD are yours.
Truly yours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102328</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>TriezGamer</author>
	<datestamp>1265916840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that was Microsoft's goal, it wouldn't be done through a voluntary update, it would be built in to the OS already.  It is impractical and also rather unwise to publish such a feature if that was the objective, as a feature that is identified can be disabled -- a 'feature' that is completely unknown until it is utilized, not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that was Microsoft 's goal , it would n't be done through a voluntary update , it would be built in to the OS already .
It is impractical and also rather unwise to publish such a feature if that was the objective , as a feature that is identified can be disabled -- a 'feature ' that is completely unknown until it is utilized , not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that was Microsoft's goal, it wouldn't be done through a voluntary update, it would be built in to the OS already.
It is impractical and also rather unwise to publish such a feature if that was the objective, as a feature that is identified can be disabled -- a 'feature' that is completely unknown until it is utilized, not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101764</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Lauren Weinstein sends in news of a major and disturbing Microsoft anti-piracy initiative called Windows Activation Technologies, or WAT.</p></div><p> <b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: Thank you for calling Microsoft, all calls may be monitored for training purposes and to ensure quality of service.  Now, what seems to be the problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><b>Customer</b>: That's right.</p><p><i>*pause*</i></p><p><b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ? Sir, you have to give me more information.</p><p><b>Customer</b>: I'll tell you my problem.  WAT is my problem.</p><p><b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question, you haven't told me yet.</p><p><b>Customer</b>: I didn't ask you a question.</p><p><b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: Then why did you call?  Why do you need help?</p><p><b>Customer</b>: WAT's wrong.  I can't activate Windows 7 but I just bought it!</p><p><b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: Okay, let's try to diagnose this problem.  What's wrong?</p><p><b>Customer</b>: Yes, I already said that, I know WAT is wrong! That is precisely why I called!</p><p><b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: Wait, why are you calling?</p><p><b>Customer</b>: WAT!</p><p><b>Microsoft Phone Support</b>: I said, why are you calling?!</p><p><b>Customer</b>: WAT!  WAT, GODDAMNIT, <b>WAT</b>!!!</p></div><p>If you're too stupid to spell it out, you're too stupid to deserve the oxygen you're breathing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lauren Weinstein sends in news of a major and disturbing Microsoft anti-piracy initiative called Windows Activation Technologies , or WAT .
Microsoft Phone Support : Thank you for calling Microsoft , all calls may be monitored for training purposes and to ensure quality of service .
Now , what seems to be the problem ...Customer : That 's right .
* pause * Microsoft Phone Support : ... ? Sir , you have to give me more information.Customer : I 'll tell you my problem .
WAT is my problem.Microsoft Phone Support : Sir , I do n't know the answer to that question , you have n't told me yet.Customer : I did n't ask you a question.Microsoft Phone Support : Then why did you call ?
Why do you need help ? Customer : WAT 's wrong .
I ca n't activate Windows 7 but I just bought it ! Microsoft Phone Support : Okay , let 's try to diagnose this problem .
What 's wrong ? Customer : Yes , I already said that , I know WAT is wrong !
That is precisely why I called ! Microsoft Phone Support : Wait , why are you calling ? Customer : WAT ! Microsoft Phone Support : I said , why are you calling ?
! Customer : WAT !
WAT , GODDAMNIT , WAT ! !
! If you 're too stupid to spell it out , you 're too stupid to deserve the oxygen you 're breathing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lauren Weinstein sends in news of a major and disturbing Microsoft anti-piracy initiative called Windows Activation Technologies, or WAT.
Microsoft Phone Support: Thank you for calling Microsoft, all calls may be monitored for training purposes and to ensure quality of service.
Now, what seems to be the problem ...Customer: That's right.
*pause*Microsoft Phone Support: ... ? Sir, you have to give me more information.Customer: I'll tell you my problem.
WAT is my problem.Microsoft Phone Support: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question, you haven't told me yet.Customer: I didn't ask you a question.Microsoft Phone Support: Then why did you call?
Why do you need help?Customer: WAT's wrong.
I can't activate Windows 7 but I just bought it!Microsoft Phone Support: Okay, let's try to diagnose this problem.
What's wrong?Customer: Yes, I already said that, I know WAT is wrong!
That is precisely why I called!Microsoft Phone Support: Wait, why are you calling?Customer: WAT!Microsoft Phone Support: I said, why are you calling?
!Customer: WAT!
WAT, GODDAMNIT, WAT!!
!If you're too stupid to spell it out, you're too stupid to deserve the oxygen you're breathing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102738</id>
	<title>Re:Can it be avoided?</title>
	<author>LightningJim2</author>
	<datestamp>1265917920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back with XP and WGA you weren't allowed to access to any further updates, including critical flaw patches, until you installed WGA. I'm guessing something with WAT would be similar except it would also be a downgraded Windows 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back with XP and WGA you were n't allowed to access to any further updates , including critical flaw patches , until you installed WGA .
I 'm guessing something with WAT would be similar except it would also be a downgraded Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back with XP and WGA you weren't allowed to access to any further updates, including critical flaw patches, until you installed WGA.
I'm guessing something with WAT would be similar except it would also be a downgraded Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31211070</id>
	<title>Re:I'm tired of paying money to rent software</title>
	<author>Gaffod</author>
	<datestamp>1266691380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use free software. Or alternatively, pirate everything. If the morality bugs you, buy the software, shred the disk, then pirate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use free software .
Or alternatively , pirate everything .
If the morality bugs you , buy the software , shred the disk , then pirate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use free software.
Or alternatively, pirate everything.
If the morality bugs you, buy the software, shred the disk, then pirate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105540</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this is a stupid question.</title>
	<author>Moof123</author>
	<datestamp>1265885160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows is used as the OS in many stand alone products that are not personal computers.  For example test equipment (spectrum analyzers, and similar).  These often see networks rarely, and have access to the internet even more rarely.</p><p>Having a piece of test gear start to nag our customers after a few months is a pretty lame proposition (yes, I know that having Windows on a piece of test gear is already lame, but was not my call).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows is used as the OS in many stand alone products that are not personal computers .
For example test equipment ( spectrum analyzers , and similar ) .
These often see networks rarely , and have access to the internet even more rarely.Having a piece of test gear start to nag our customers after a few months is a pretty lame proposition ( yes , I know that having Windows on a piece of test gear is already lame , but was not my call ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows is used as the OS in many stand alone products that are not personal computers.
For example test equipment (spectrum analyzers, and similar).
These often see networks rarely, and have access to the internet even more rarely.Having a piece of test gear start to nag our customers after a few months is a pretty lame proposition (yes, I know that having Windows on a piece of test gear is already lame, but was not my call).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103390</id>
	<title>Re:So bend over and bark like a dog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265920140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple's offerings are so expensive and overrated. I find it funny that you think you're too good for Microsoft because "it's expensive."<br>Maybe it's time to get a job and then you'll learn what the FSF stands for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's offerings are so expensive and overrated .
I find it funny that you think you 're too good for Microsoft because " it 's expensive .
" Maybe it 's time to get a job and then you 'll learn what the FSF stands for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's offerings are so expensive and overrated.
I find it funny that you think you're too good for Microsoft because "it's expensive.
"Maybe it's time to get a job and then you'll learn what the FSF stands for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102886</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>VTBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1265918400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is not really true.  Bill Gates said one time when talking about Chinese piracy, and to paraphrase, "if people are going to pirate software, we'd prefer they pirate ours."</p><p>WAT simply prevents general consumers from being fooled that their computers have a legally  licensed copy of Windows.  Many system builders in the past have sold customers Windows in this fashion, and many have been taken to court over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is not really true .
Bill Gates said one time when talking about Chinese piracy , and to paraphrase , " if people are going to pirate software , we 'd prefer they pirate ours .
" WAT simply prevents general consumers from being fooled that their computers have a legally licensed copy of Windows .
Many system builders in the past have sold customers Windows in this fashion , and many have been taken to court over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is not really true.
Bill Gates said one time when talking about Chinese piracy, and to paraphrase, "if people are going to pirate software, we'd prefer they pirate ours.
"WAT simply prevents general consumers from being fooled that their computers have a legally  licensed copy of Windows.
Many system builders in the past have sold customers Windows in this fashion, and many have been taken to court over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104076</id>
	<title>Windows Embedded</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1265879460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sure how Windows Embedded doesn't do this.  I work for a company that uses it on devices that don't have Internet access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure how Windows Embedded does n't do this .
I work for a company that uses it on devices that do n't have Internet access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure how Windows Embedded doesn't do this.
I work for a company that uses it on devices that don't have Internet access.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102984</id>
	<title>Re:News flash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law of this country disagrees. I actually <b>own</b> my copy of Windows XP. The EULA is null and void in this country, because it can't be part of the contract as it's shown only after the sale is perfect. There are limitations on what I can do with my software, due to copyright law, but that does not change the fact that I do own it. I am even explicitly allowed to modify the software to work around compatibility issues that Microsoft does not correct. So, should Microsoft deny me an activation because I replaced too many components or make it so that I often have to interrupt work to deal with activation issues, I have the legal right to crack Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law of this country disagrees .
I actually own my copy of Windows XP .
The EULA is null and void in this country , because it ca n't be part of the contract as it 's shown only after the sale is perfect .
There are limitations on what I can do with my software , due to copyright law , but that does not change the fact that I do own it .
I am even explicitly allowed to modify the software to work around compatibility issues that Microsoft does not correct .
So , should Microsoft deny me an activation because I replaced too many components or make it so that I often have to interrupt work to deal with activation issues , I have the legal right to crack Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law of this country disagrees.
I actually own my copy of Windows XP.
The EULA is null and void in this country, because it can't be part of the contract as it's shown only after the sale is perfect.
There are limitations on what I can do with my software, due to copyright law, but that does not change the fact that I do own it.
I am even explicitly allowed to modify the software to work around compatibility issues that Microsoft does not correct.
So, should Microsoft deny me an activation because I replaced too many components or make it so that I often have to interrupt work to deal with activation issues, I have the legal right to crack Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103956</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.</p></div><p>Citation needed. This has been Microsoft's official line for a long time&mdash;we're trying to protect the users who cluelessly buy from bootleg vendors; they're victims of piracy too&mdash;but I've never even heard of anyone who had such a problem. I can scarcely imagine someone buying a Windows disc for $15 off a street corner while remaining oblivious to what's going on.</p><p>Now, not to say that actual for-profit piracy shouldn't be attacked and punished&mdash;bootleg profiteers are the scum of the earth and make life more difficult for the innocent person who pirates the occasional MP3 or warez just for convenience's sake&mdash;but would these hypothetical dupes with "non-genuine" Windows copies really <em>have</em> a problem if not for your own anti-piracy measures? It sounds an awful lot like a protection racket. "Look, I'm on your side. I'm just trying to help you make sure you haven't accidentally got a bootleg copy of our software. 'Cause if you did, our lawyers would hafta break your legs. And that'd be a real shame."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
Yes , Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you 're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people do n't know they are.Citation needed .
This has been Microsoft 's official line for a long time    we 're trying to protect the users who cluelessly buy from bootleg vendors ; they 're victims of piracy too    but I 've never even heard of anyone who had such a problem .
I can scarcely imagine someone buying a Windows disc for $ 15 off a street corner while remaining oblivious to what 's going on.Now , not to say that actual for-profit piracy should n't be attacked and punished    bootleg profiteers are the scum of the earth and make life more difficult for the innocent person who pirates the occasional MP3 or warez just for convenience 's sake    but would these hypothetical dupes with " non-genuine " Windows copies really have a problem if not for your own anti-piracy measures ?
It sounds an awful lot like a protection racket .
" Look , I 'm on your side .
I 'm just trying to help you make sure you have n't accidentally got a bootleg copy of our software .
'Cause if you did , our lawyers would hafta break your legs .
And that 'd be a real shame .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.Citation needed.
This has been Microsoft's official line for a long time—we're trying to protect the users who cluelessly buy from bootleg vendors; they're victims of piracy too—but I've never even heard of anyone who had such a problem.
I can scarcely imagine someone buying a Windows disc for $15 off a street corner while remaining oblivious to what's going on.Now, not to say that actual for-profit piracy shouldn't be attacked and punished—bootleg profiteers are the scum of the earth and make life more difficult for the innocent person who pirates the occasional MP3 or warez just for convenience's sake—but would these hypothetical dupes with "non-genuine" Windows copies really have a problem if not for your own anti-piracy measures?
It sounds an awful lot like a protection racket.
"Look, I'm on your side.
I'm just trying to help you make sure you haven't accidentally got a bootleg copy of our software.
'Cause if you did, our lawyers would hafta break your legs.
And that'd be a real shame.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101920</id>
	<title>Re:So what do they do</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1265915340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Steps like these need to be taken because, well, people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.</p></div><p>The problem with steps like these is that they will mostly cause problems for people who tried to do the right thing by buying Windows 7 legitimately but now Microsoft identifies it as a pirate key (either because they got it from a shady character who was selling illegal copies with some pirated key, or because the legitmate key they got has since been pirated--or at least identified as pirated). People who knowingly are using a pirated copy will either have developed a work around that avoids this problem, or will be expecting this to come up and have a plan in place to deal with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steps like these need to be taken because , well , people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.The problem with steps like these is that they will mostly cause problems for people who tried to do the right thing by buying Windows 7 legitimately but now Microsoft identifies it as a pirate key ( either because they got it from a shady character who was selling illegal copies with some pirated key , or because the legitmate key they got has since been pirated--or at least identified as pirated ) .
People who knowingly are using a pirated copy will either have developed a work around that avoids this problem , or will be expecting this to come up and have a plan in place to deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steps like these need to be taken because, well, people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.The problem with steps like these is that they will mostly cause problems for people who tried to do the right thing by buying Windows 7 legitimately but now Microsoft identifies it as a pirate key (either because they got it from a shady character who was selling illegal copies with some pirated key, or because the legitmate key they got has since been pirated--or at least identified as pirated).
People who knowingly are using a pirated copy will either have developed a work around that avoids this problem, or will be expecting this to come up and have a plan in place to deal with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103874</id>
	<title>Headline: Microsoft promotes Linux for desktop!</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1265878800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thought I'd fix that article title for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought I 'd fix that article title for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought I'd fix that article title for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102578</id>
	<title>All I have to say is...</title>
	<author>Firewheels</author>
	<datestamp>1265917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just one more reason for me not to use windows.</p><p>--<br>Microsoft free for over five years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just one more reason for me not to use windows.--Microsoft free for over five years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just one more reason for me not to use windows.--Microsoft free for over five years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102402</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Voluntary patch"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...And what happens if one does not choose to accept this "voluntary patch"?  Do I lose access to other system updates, am I locked out of other Microsoft services?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... And is this "voluntary patch" going to be included in the next Windows 7 Service Pack as a mandatory component for non-corporate installs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Voluntary patch " ...And what happens if one does not choose to accept this " voluntary patch " ?
Do I lose access to other system updates , am I locked out of other Microsoft services ?
... And is this " voluntary patch " going to be included in the next Windows 7 Service Pack as a mandatory component for non-corporate installs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Voluntary patch" ...And what happens if one does not choose to accept this "voluntary patch"?
Do I lose access to other system updates, am I locked out of other Microsoft services?
... And is this "voluntary patch" going to be included in the next Windows 7 Service Pack as a mandatory component for non-corporate installs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103186</id>
	<title>Question...</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265919360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you "downgrade" Windows 7? Covert it to Windows ME?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you " downgrade " Windows 7 ?
Covert it to Windows ME ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you "downgrade" Windows 7?
Covert it to Windows ME?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101958</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>skuzzlebutt</author>
	<datestamp>1265915460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Customer:</b> What's your name? I need to talk to your supervisor.<br><b>Microsoft Phone Support:</b> Hu.<br><b>Customer:</b> (head explodes)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Customer : What 's your name ?
I need to talk to your supervisor.Microsoft Phone Support : Hu.Customer : ( head explodes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Customer: What's your name?
I need to talk to your supervisor.Microsoft Phone Support: Hu.Customer: (head explodes)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105588</id>
	<title>Read the EULA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most folks just refuse to read the Microsoft Windows EULA and consider how it effects them. So be it. This is the kind of treatment you agree to, even when you don't read it but still click "I Agree". No whining is necessary, you can clearly avoid the problem with GNU/Linux and the GPL.</p><p>More power to the GPL. Now is your chance to learn about freedom.<br>Can you take the pebble from my hand weedhopper?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>http://www.fsf.org/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most folks just refuse to read the Microsoft Windows EULA and consider how it effects them .
So be it .
This is the kind of treatment you agree to , even when you do n't read it but still click " I Agree " .
No whining is necessary , you can clearly avoid the problem with GNU/Linux and the GPL.More power to the GPL .
Now is your chance to learn about freedom.Can you take the pebble from my hand weedhopper ?
: ) http : //www.fsf.org/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most folks just refuse to read the Microsoft Windows EULA and consider how it effects them.
So be it.
This is the kind of treatment you agree to, even when you don't read it but still click "I Agree".
No whining is necessary, you can clearly avoid the problem with GNU/Linux and the GPL.More power to the GPL.
Now is your chance to learn about freedom.Can you take the pebble from my hand weedhopper?
:)http://www.fsf.org/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101944</id>
	<title>Re:Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who in their right mind would use Windows on a server any more?</p></div><p>Who in their right mind puts windows on a server anyway? Crazy people and masochists, that's who.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who in their right mind would use Windows on a server any more ? Who in their right mind puts windows on a server anyway ?
Crazy people and masochists , that 's who .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who in their right mind would use Windows on a server any more?Who in their right mind puts windows on a server anyway?
Crazy people and masochists, that's who.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105158</id>
	<title>Re:Riiiiight!</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1265883780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know much about it but i thought Linux typically supported the Chipsets and not the Vendor who ships it.  There shouldn't be a 64-bit sound driver for linux though?  If you can tell me the make/model of your card i can help you get your kernel setup.  I'm a Gentoo guy.. compiling stuff is inescapable for me.</p><p>Check out Wine if you haven't tried it lately.. it's becoming very mature.  There's a good posibility your games will work out of the box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know much about it but i thought Linux typically supported the Chipsets and not the Vendor who ships it .
There should n't be a 64-bit sound driver for linux though ?
If you can tell me the make/model of your card i can help you get your kernel setup .
I 'm a Gentoo guy.. compiling stuff is inescapable for me.Check out Wine if you have n't tried it lately.. it 's becoming very mature .
There 's a good posibility your games will work out of the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know much about it but i thought Linux typically supported the Chipsets and not the Vendor who ships it.
There shouldn't be a 64-bit sound driver for linux though?
If you can tell me the make/model of your card i can help you get your kernel setup.
I'm a Gentoo guy.. compiling stuff is inescapable for me.Check out Wine if you haven't tried it lately.. it's becoming very mature.
There's a good posibility your games will work out of the box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105236</id>
	<title>As I've always insisted:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows is a virus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows is a virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows is a virus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102848</id>
	<title>Fear the day of Windows 8 release.</title>
	<author>Fantasio</author>
	<datestamp>1265918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prepare your credit card for a mandatory upgrade within 90 days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prepare your credit card for a mandatory upgrade within 90 days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prepare your credit card for a mandatory upgrade within 90 days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102096</id>
	<title>Robin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This creates an interesting issue when Windows 7 is phased out. My company has been using Office 2003, but that recently fell off the Microsoft supported software list and now they want $50 every time we attempt to activate the software. I think forcing future upgrades is also part of the Microsoft strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This creates an interesting issue when Windows 7 is phased out .
My company has been using Office 2003 , but that recently fell off the Microsoft supported software list and now they want $ 50 every time we attempt to activate the software .
I think forcing future upgrades is also part of the Microsoft strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This creates an interesting issue when Windows 7 is phased out.
My company has been using Office 2003, but that recently fell off the Microsoft supported software list and now they want $50 every time we attempt to activate the software.
I think forcing future upgrades is also part of the Microsoft strategy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107312</id>
	<title>that would be an interesting thing to hack</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1265892360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Oooh.  Consider.  A man-in-the-middle attack has the potential to cripple millions of PCs.  I wonder how long it'll take for crackers to think of that.
</p><p>
Intuitively, making the process fail for good licenses is probably easier than making the process succeed for pirated licenses.  Especially since (bonus!) previous success is no guarantee against current failure.  Thanks, Microsoft, for creating another DOS vector.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oooh .
Consider. A man-in-the-middle attack has the potential to cripple millions of PCs .
I wonder how long it 'll take for crackers to think of that .
Intuitively , making the process fail for good licenses is probably easier than making the process succeed for pirated licenses .
Especially since ( bonus !
) previous success is no guarantee against current failure .
Thanks , Microsoft , for creating another DOS vector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Oooh.
Consider.  A man-in-the-middle attack has the potential to cripple millions of PCs.
I wonder how long it'll take for crackers to think of that.
Intuitively, making the process fail for good licenses is probably easier than making the process succeed for pirated licenses.
Especially since (bonus!
) previous success is no guarantee against current failure.
Thanks, Microsoft, for creating another DOS vector.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103470</id>
	<title>A matter of time</title>
	<author>andrewcaveman</author>
	<datestamp>1265920500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think that it would be a matter of time that someone would write a virus, that once a Windows 7 machine was infected, it would send the valid users license key to the Internet, then cycle the Windows 7 key to one that is black listed in the MS database. That would be a nightmare scenario.

I thought about getting a copy for gaming, but I guess I will stick to Linux and whatever can run on codeweavers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think that it would be a matter of time that someone would write a virus , that once a Windows 7 machine was infected , it would send the valid users license key to the Internet , then cycle the Windows 7 key to one that is black listed in the MS database .
That would be a nightmare scenario .
I thought about getting a copy for gaming , but I guess I will stick to Linux and whatever can run on codeweavers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think that it would be a matter of time that someone would write a virus, that once a Windows 7 machine was infected, it would send the valid users license key to the Internet, then cycle the Windows 7 key to one that is black listed in the MS database.
That would be a nightmare scenario.
I thought about getting a copy for gaming, but I guess I will stick to Linux and whatever can run on codeweavers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101860</id>
	<title>Riiiiight!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this is an anti-piracy measure.</p><p>Lemme see... I'll bet that, if it can't reach Microsoft, it will also downgrade. After all, what good is an anti-piracy measure if it can be bypassed just by blocking access to Microsoft? So this is really a solution for all those pesky users out there who just didn't realize how good it would be for them to upgrade to Vista and wanted to hold onto their antiquated XP. Now, when Windows 8 comes out, all they will have to do is pull the plug on the validation server and watch the money roll in as people are forced to upgrade to avoid running on a crippled machine.</p><p>Do you have enough reasons to quit using their shitty software yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this is an anti-piracy measure.Lem me see... I 'll bet that , if it ca n't reach Microsoft , it will also downgrade .
After all , what good is an anti-piracy measure if it can be bypassed just by blocking access to Microsoft ?
So this is really a solution for all those pesky users out there who just did n't realize how good it would be for them to upgrade to Vista and wanted to hold onto their antiquated XP .
Now , when Windows 8 comes out , all they will have to do is pull the plug on the validation server and watch the money roll in as people are forced to upgrade to avoid running on a crippled machine.Do you have enough reasons to quit using their shitty software yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this is an anti-piracy measure.Lemme see... I'll bet that, if it can't reach Microsoft, it will also downgrade.
After all, what good is an anti-piracy measure if it can be bypassed just by blocking access to Microsoft?
So this is really a solution for all those pesky users out there who just didn't realize how good it would be for them to upgrade to Vista and wanted to hold onto their antiquated XP.
Now, when Windows 8 comes out, all they will have to do is pull the plug on the validation server and watch the money roll in as people are forced to upgrade to avoid running on a crippled machine.Do you have enough reasons to quit using their shitty software yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102160</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically I can setup WSUS (for free) and via group policy point my non-genuine Windows 7 boxes to use WSUS for updates, instead of directly connecting to MS servers?<br>Boom, problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically I can setup WSUS ( for free ) and via group policy point my non-genuine Windows 7 boxes to use WSUS for updates , instead of directly connecting to MS servers ? Boom , problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically I can setup WSUS (for free) and via group policy point my non-genuine Windows 7 boxes to use WSUS for updates, instead of directly connecting to MS servers?Boom, problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102890</id>
	<title>Standalone Networks</title>
	<author>Amigori</author>
	<datestamp>1265918400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I manage a small group of machines that are connected to each other, but <b> <i>never</i> </b> to the Internet.  Our customer asked for the Vista upgrade, paid for proper licensing, we installed Vista in a small test group, customers were happy.  Vista failed, customers were extremely unhappy.  <br> <br>

This is the sole reason that we haven't migrated all the clients to Vista.  And why we had to rollback the test group back to XP.  Vista's phone-home cycle is 180 days, then it lies to you and says that "Hardware Changed..." and drops the computer into its restricted use mode.  <br> <br>

There is a solution for this problem, Microsoft <a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979804.aspx" title="microsoft.com">Key Management Services (KMS)</a> [microsoft.com].  We SAs are ready to deploy KMS, but have run into management resistance for 6+ months now.  Vista left such a bad impression with them, they decided to just wait until we migrate to Windows 7 to setup KMS.  And that won't happen until the next hardware refresh cycle, so maybe 1Q2011. <br> <br>

Once you have KMS, the 180- to 90-day change really isn't that big of a deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I manage a small group of machines that are connected to each other , but never to the Internet .
Our customer asked for the Vista upgrade , paid for proper licensing , we installed Vista in a small test group , customers were happy .
Vista failed , customers were extremely unhappy .
This is the sole reason that we have n't migrated all the clients to Vista .
And why we had to rollback the test group back to XP .
Vista 's phone-home cycle is 180 days , then it lies to you and says that " Hardware Changed... " and drops the computer into its restricted use mode .
There is a solution for this problem , Microsoft Key Management Services ( KMS ) [ microsoft.com ] .
We SAs are ready to deploy KMS , but have run into management resistance for 6 + months now .
Vista left such a bad impression with them , they decided to just wait until we migrate to Windows 7 to setup KMS .
And that wo n't happen until the next hardware refresh cycle , so maybe 1Q2011 .
Once you have KMS , the 180- to 90-day change really is n't that big of a deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I manage a small group of machines that are connected to each other, but  never  to the Internet.
Our customer asked for the Vista upgrade, paid for proper licensing, we installed Vista in a small test group, customers were happy.
Vista failed, customers were extremely unhappy.
This is the sole reason that we haven't migrated all the clients to Vista.
And why we had to rollback the test group back to XP.
Vista's phone-home cycle is 180 days, then it lies to you and says that "Hardware Changed..." and drops the computer into its restricted use mode.
There is a solution for this problem, Microsoft Key Management Services (KMS) [microsoft.com].
We SAs are ready to deploy KMS, but have run into management resistance for 6+ months now.
Vista left such a bad impression with them, they decided to just wait until we migrate to Windows 7 to setup KMS.
And that won't happen until the next hardware refresh cycle, so maybe 1Q2011.
Once you have KMS, the 180- to 90-day change really isn't that big of a deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102766</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>tomtomtom</author>
	<datestamp>1265917980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would really pick you up on your point (1) - I'm assuming this will be like Windows XP's "WGA Notification" patch which is also "voluntary".</p><p>In that you can avoid installing it, IF you (i) don't use Automatic Updates; and (ii) remember to click "custom updates", then find it in the huge list of patches that comes up on a fresh install, then realize what it is, then deselect it, then click the box saying "no I really don't want this, don't ever show it to me again".</p><p>Oh, and if you do have the bad luck to happen to accidentally install it, you can only uninstall this patch with a third-party crack.</p><p>All in all, I'd say this patch is less "voluntary" than a lot of malware trojans are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would really pick you up on your point ( 1 ) - I 'm assuming this will be like Windows XP 's " WGA Notification " patch which is also " voluntary " .In that you can avoid installing it , IF you ( i ) do n't use Automatic Updates ; and ( ii ) remember to click " custom updates " , then find it in the huge list of patches that comes up on a fresh install , then realize what it is , then deselect it , then click the box saying " no I really do n't want this , do n't ever show it to me again " .Oh , and if you do have the bad luck to happen to accidentally install it , you can only uninstall this patch with a third-party crack.All in all , I 'd say this patch is less " voluntary " than a lot of malware trojans are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would really pick you up on your point (1) - I'm assuming this will be like Windows XP's "WGA Notification" patch which is also "voluntary".In that you can avoid installing it, IF you (i) don't use Automatic Updates; and (ii) remember to click "custom updates", then find it in the huge list of patches that comes up on a fresh install, then realize what it is, then deselect it, then click the box saying "no I really don't want this, don't ever show it to me again".Oh, and if you do have the bad luck to happen to accidentally install it, you can only uninstall this patch with a third-party crack.All in all, I'd say this patch is less "voluntary" than a lot of malware trojans are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102196</id>
	<title>Blimey</title>
	<author>NoNeeeed</author>
	<datestamp>1265916420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And people think that Apple are control freaks.</p><p>I mean, Apple *are* control freaks, but even they don't do stuff like this.</p><p>Linux looks more and more appealing every day.</p><p>I'm curious what happens if you don't connect your machine to the internet, by MS assume that only a weirdo would not connect their machine to the internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And people think that Apple are control freaks.I mean , Apple * are * control freaks , but even they do n't do stuff like this.Linux looks more and more appealing every day.I 'm curious what happens if you do n't connect your machine to the internet , by MS assume that only a weirdo would not connect their machine to the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people think that Apple are control freaks.I mean, Apple *are* control freaks, but even they don't do stuff like this.Linux looks more and more appealing every day.I'm curious what happens if you don't connect your machine to the internet, by MS assume that only a weirdo would not connect their machine to the internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102420</id>
	<title>Re:Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265917080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who in their right mind would use Windows on a server any more?</p></div><p>Folks who've spent their entire lives working on a Windows GUI and can't imagine a computer without a Start menu or a C: drive.</p><p>We're a Microsoft shop...  That's generally what we sell and install, including servers.  Myself, I don't much care what we run.  I'm familiar with various flavors of *nix and support them as well.  My boss, on the other hand, can't deal with anything non-Windows.</p><p>You should have seen his face the first time he sat down in front of a machine running XenServer.  He had no freaking clue what to do with it.  He kept shaking the mouse around and looking puzzled.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who in their right mind would use Windows on a server any more ? Folks who 've spent their entire lives working on a Windows GUI and ca n't imagine a computer without a Start menu or a C : drive.We 're a Microsoft shop... That 's generally what we sell and install , including servers .
Myself , I do n't much care what we run .
I 'm familiar with various flavors of * nix and support them as well .
My boss , on the other hand , ca n't deal with anything non-Windows.You should have seen his face the first time he sat down in front of a machine running XenServer .
He had no freaking clue what to do with it .
He kept shaking the mouse around and looking puzzled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who in their right mind would use Windows on a server any more?Folks who've spent their entire lives working on a Windows GUI and can't imagine a computer without a Start menu or a C: drive.We're a Microsoft shop...  That's generally what we sell and install, including servers.
Myself, I don't much care what we run.
I'm familiar with various flavors of *nix and support them as well.
My boss, on the other hand, can't deal with anything non-Windows.You should have seen his face the first time he sat down in front of a machine running XenServer.
He had no freaking clue what to do with it.
He kept shaking the mouse around and looking puzzled.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105924</id>
	<title>Anti piracy not good for..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265886480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... internet security.  I think this is the one place MS has got it wrong, infections, malware, etc, having phone home code to deny users updates is pretty stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... internet security .
I think this is the one place MS has got it wrong , infections , malware , etc , having phone home code to deny users updates is pretty stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... internet security.
I think this is the one place MS has got it wrong, infections, malware, etc, having phone home code to deny users updates is pretty stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102010</id>
	<title>after vista..</title>
	<author>Multiwp</author>
	<datestamp>1265915700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>windows 7 like a heaven, after vista.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</htmltext>
<tokenext>windows 7 like a heaven , after vista .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>windows 7 like a heaven, after vista.
:/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101746</id>
	<title>Well that pretty much settles it for me.</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1265914680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like the Win7 upgrade is off the table for me.  Dual-booting XP &amp; Kubuntu for the foreseeable future!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like the Win7 upgrade is off the table for me .
Dual-booting XP &amp; Kubuntu for the foreseeable future !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like the Win7 upgrade is off the table for me.
Dual-booting XP &amp; Kubuntu for the foreseeable future!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103572</id>
	<title>Re:So bend over and bark like a dog</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1265920800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would run OSX... but I can't bend over that far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would run OSX... but I ca n't bend over that far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would run OSX... but I can't bend over that far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108578</id>
	<title>It Will be an Optional Update Anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265900220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone even RTFA?  It's an optional installation.  Even once it's deployed on WU, it will be a voluntary step to run it.  You don't have to use it if you don't want to.  And it won't be deployed to IT-managed environments at all unless the sysadmin specifically deploys it with WSUS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone even RTFA ?
It 's an optional installation .
Even once it 's deployed on WU , it will be a voluntary step to run it .
You do n't have to use it if you do n't want to .
And it wo n't be deployed to IT-managed environments at all unless the sysadmin specifically deploys it with WSUS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone even RTFA?
It's an optional installation.
Even once it's deployed on WU, it will be a voluntary step to run it.
You don't have to use it if you don't want to.
And it won't be deployed to IT-managed environments at all unless the sysadmin specifically deploys it with WSUS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102024</id>
	<title>Re:So what do they do</title>
	<author>d3ac0n</author>
	<datestamp>1265915700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like SOMEONE has forgotten the last time Microsoft tried this and hundreds of thousands of XP users were suddenly declared "non-genuine".</p><p>The problem is not that people don't want to pay.  If they didn't Microsoft would already be broke.  The problem is that the pirates have already figured out the algorithm that MS uses to make the keys and are already distributing keygens.  These keygens are making LEGITIMATE KEYS that may or may not be out "in the wild" already.  If MS chooses to block these keys, the keys already released in real Win7 packages are ALSO blocked.</p><p>Can you imagine buying a brand new copy of Win7, peeling off the shrink-wrap, going through the setup, and then having your own PC tell you that the copy of Win7 you JUST BOUGHT is "Non-Genuine"?  Good luck trying to take it back to the store once you've opened it.</p><p>So tell me, genius, who suffers when MS pulls a stupid stunt like this?  The pirates?  HELL NO!  They just re-gen another key and go on their happy way.  It's the LEGITIMATE CUSTOMERS that suffer 100\% of the time.  They are the ones who have to sit through Microsoft's interminable hold times and be treated like criminals.  Not the real pirates.  A system like this is pretty much custom-made to piss off the customer base.</p><p>Say hello to Yet Another PR Disaster(tm) from your friends in Redmond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like SOMEONE has forgotten the last time Microsoft tried this and hundreds of thousands of XP users were suddenly declared " non-genuine " .The problem is not that people do n't want to pay .
If they did n't Microsoft would already be broke .
The problem is that the pirates have already figured out the algorithm that MS uses to make the keys and are already distributing keygens .
These keygens are making LEGITIMATE KEYS that may or may not be out " in the wild " already .
If MS chooses to block these keys , the keys already released in real Win7 packages are ALSO blocked.Can you imagine buying a brand new copy of Win7 , peeling off the shrink-wrap , going through the setup , and then having your own PC tell you that the copy of Win7 you JUST BOUGHT is " Non-Genuine " ?
Good luck trying to take it back to the store once you 've opened it.So tell me , genius , who suffers when MS pulls a stupid stunt like this ?
The pirates ?
HELL NO !
They just re-gen another key and go on their happy way .
It 's the LEGITIMATE CUSTOMERS that suffer 100 \ % of the time .
They are the ones who have to sit through Microsoft 's interminable hold times and be treated like criminals .
Not the real pirates .
A system like this is pretty much custom-made to piss off the customer base.Say hello to Yet Another PR Disaster ( tm ) from your friends in Redmond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like SOMEONE has forgotten the last time Microsoft tried this and hundreds of thousands of XP users were suddenly declared "non-genuine".The problem is not that people don't want to pay.
If they didn't Microsoft would already be broke.
The problem is that the pirates have already figured out the algorithm that MS uses to make the keys and are already distributing keygens.
These keygens are making LEGITIMATE KEYS that may or may not be out "in the wild" already.
If MS chooses to block these keys, the keys already released in real Win7 packages are ALSO blocked.Can you imagine buying a brand new copy of Win7, peeling off the shrink-wrap, going through the setup, and then having your own PC tell you that the copy of Win7 you JUST BOUGHT is "Non-Genuine"?
Good luck trying to take it back to the store once you've opened it.So tell me, genius, who suffers when MS pulls a stupid stunt like this?
The pirates?
HELL NO!
They just re-gen another key and go on their happy way.
It's the LEGITIMATE CUSTOMERS that suffer 100\% of the time.
They are the ones who have to sit through Microsoft's interminable hold times and be treated like criminals.
Not the real pirates.
A system like this is pretty much custom-made to piss off the customer base.Say hello to Yet Another PR Disaster(tm) from your friends in Redmond.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102352</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>thewils</author>
	<datestamp>1265916840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's not just talking about this particular instance - this is a what-if scenario. Which Govt. in their right minds would install an OS which can effectively be shut down by an outsider (or potentially even a hacker).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not just talking about this particular instance - this is a what-if scenario .
Which Govt .
in their right minds would install an OS which can effectively be shut down by an outsider ( or potentially even a hacker ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not just talking about this particular instance - this is a what-if scenario.
Which Govt.
in their right minds would install an OS which can effectively be shut down by an outsider (or potentially even a hacker).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102444</id>
	<title>Re:So what do they do</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1265917140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Steps like these need to be taken because, well, people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.</p></div><p>In other words, even though I paid for my copy of Windows, I&rsquo;m going to be punished for the misdeeds of everyone who didn&rsquo;t. And on top of that, you basically assume that without such draconian measures, I&rsquo;d have pirated it too.</p><p>Well, here&rsquo;s news for you, apparently. Pirating Windows is just as easy as buying it, maybe easier; much cheaper, definitely; and treating your paying customers like thieves because of the dishonesty of people they have no control over makes for a rotten business practice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steps like these need to be taken because , well , people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.In other words , even though I paid for my copy of Windows , I    m going to be punished for the misdeeds of everyone who didn    t .
And on top of that , you basically assume that without such draconian measures , I    d have pirated it too.Well , here    s news for you , apparently .
Pirating Windows is just as easy as buying it , maybe easier ; much cheaper , definitely ; and treating your paying customers like thieves because of the dishonesty of people they have no control over makes for a rotten business practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steps like these need to be taken because, well, people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.In other words, even though I paid for my copy of Windows, I’m going to be punished for the misdeeds of everyone who didn’t.
And on top of that, you basically assume that without such draconian measures, I’d have pirated it too.Well, here’s news for you, apparently.
Pirating Windows is just as easy as buying it, maybe easier; much cheaper, definitely; and treating your paying customers like thieves because of the dishonesty of people they have no control over makes for a rotten business practice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101906</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be a real hit at parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be a real hit at parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be a real hit at parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102034</id>
	<title>Re:So what do they do</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1265915760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I take it MS is supposed to do nothing and hope that you'll be nice and pay them?</p></div></blockquote><p>In a word, yes. Microsoft is concentrating entirely too much on a market that is simply not as large as they think it is - namely, the people who a) currently pirate Microsoft software and b) would pay for Microsoft software if pirating it was too difficult. This is a vanishingly small group of people, and in order to get these people to buy Microsoft software they are adversely affecting <i>everyone</i> who buys Microsoft software.</p><p>Further, this means of verifying that Windows 7 installations will simply not work. Microsoft is being nice and packaging it in one update, which means that what this update does and how it works will be easily reverse engineered. Once the pirates know how it works, there are a ridiculous number of ways to circumvent it at every step of the process - it would be relatively easy to intercept the downgrade command coming from the server, or change the downgrade routine so that it does nothing, or spoof the current signature with a known-good one (and if Microsoft bans that, they'll be banning every single legitimate user with that signature), or to do any number of other things that would be come apparent after reverse-engineering the update.</p><p>So yes, Microsoft shouldn't do anything - because doing nothing is better than wasting money and goodwill on something useless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I take it MS is supposed to do nothing and hope that you 'll be nice and pay them ? In a word , yes .
Microsoft is concentrating entirely too much on a market that is simply not as large as they think it is - namely , the people who a ) currently pirate Microsoft software and b ) would pay for Microsoft software if pirating it was too difficult .
This is a vanishingly small group of people , and in order to get these people to buy Microsoft software they are adversely affecting everyone who buys Microsoft software.Further , this means of verifying that Windows 7 installations will simply not work .
Microsoft is being nice and packaging it in one update , which means that what this update does and how it works will be easily reverse engineered .
Once the pirates know how it works , there are a ridiculous number of ways to circumvent it at every step of the process - it would be relatively easy to intercept the downgrade command coming from the server , or change the downgrade routine so that it does nothing , or spoof the current signature with a known-good one ( and if Microsoft bans that , they 'll be banning every single legitimate user with that signature ) , or to do any number of other things that would be come apparent after reverse-engineering the update.So yes , Microsoft should n't do anything - because doing nothing is better than wasting money and goodwill on something useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take it MS is supposed to do nothing and hope that you'll be nice and pay them?In a word, yes.
Microsoft is concentrating entirely too much on a market that is simply not as large as they think it is - namely, the people who a) currently pirate Microsoft software and b) would pay for Microsoft software if pirating it was too difficult.
This is a vanishingly small group of people, and in order to get these people to buy Microsoft software they are adversely affecting everyone who buys Microsoft software.Further, this means of verifying that Windows 7 installations will simply not work.
Microsoft is being nice and packaging it in one update, which means that what this update does and how it works will be easily reverse engineered.
Once the pirates know how it works, there are a ridiculous number of ways to circumvent it at every step of the process - it would be relatively easy to intercept the downgrade command coming from the server, or change the downgrade routine so that it does nothing, or spoof the current signature with a known-good one (and if Microsoft bans that, they'll be banning every single legitimate user with that signature), or to do any number of other things that would be come apparent after reverse-engineering the update.So yes, Microsoft shouldn't do anything - because doing nothing is better than wasting money and goodwill on something useless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104900</id>
	<title>Re:Not news</title>
	<author>holiggan</author>
	<datestamp>1265882880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might be wrong, but I don't think that WAT works the same way as WGA.</p><p>I haven't RTFA (hey, this is slashdot afterall!), but from the sumary, I would say that WAT searches for something that indicates that an exploit was used to validade a pirate windows (ex. loaders, BIOS exploits, etc.).</p><p>So, for example, if WAT finds a certain system file with a version diferent than it should be, you're "grounded". Or if the windows system files say that you "have" a Dell OEM release, and it queries the BIOS and finds it's a non-Dell computer. Things like that. Or a game, after or even before an update, checking to see if it's the genuine release, by looking at the binaries. Ops, most of them already do that.</p><p>Although the principle makes some (twisted) sense (I'm pretty sure that checking to see if people hacked your precious DRM is valid), I don't quite agree with the whole "consumers are pirates/thiefs/crooks" anyway, so I'm keeping away from this update as long as I can. And yes, I have a genuine Windows 7. And no, even though I have "nothing to hide", I don't agree with manufacturers peeking inside my system, treating me as a potencial-criminal. Let me remind you that "pre-crime" or "thought-crime" doesn't exist yet. And I agree with *ONE* "call home" when I install the software. Apart from that, let Microsoft or EA come in person to my house and I'll show them the purchase receipts.</p><p>Oh, another example: the iPhone checking if its ROM (or BIOS or whatever) is intact, and you haven't "jailbreaked" your iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might be wrong , but I do n't think that WAT works the same way as WGA.I have n't RTFA ( hey , this is slashdot afterall !
) , but from the sumary , I would say that WAT searches for something that indicates that an exploit was used to validade a pirate windows ( ex .
loaders , BIOS exploits , etc .
) .So , for example , if WAT finds a certain system file with a version diferent than it should be , you 're " grounded " .
Or if the windows system files say that you " have " a Dell OEM release , and it queries the BIOS and finds it 's a non-Dell computer .
Things like that .
Or a game , after or even before an update , checking to see if it 's the genuine release , by looking at the binaries .
Ops , most of them already do that.Although the principle makes some ( twisted ) sense ( I 'm pretty sure that checking to see if people hacked your precious DRM is valid ) , I do n't quite agree with the whole " consumers are pirates/thiefs/crooks " anyway , so I 'm keeping away from this update as long as I can .
And yes , I have a genuine Windows 7 .
And no , even though I have " nothing to hide " , I do n't agree with manufacturers peeking inside my system , treating me as a potencial-criminal .
Let me remind you that " pre-crime " or " thought-crime " does n't exist yet .
And I agree with * ONE * " call home " when I install the software .
Apart from that , let Microsoft or EA come in person to my house and I 'll show them the purchase receipts.Oh , another example : the iPhone checking if its ROM ( or BIOS or whatever ) is intact , and you have n't " jailbreaked " your iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might be wrong, but I don't think that WAT works the same way as WGA.I haven't RTFA (hey, this is slashdot afterall!
), but from the sumary, I would say that WAT searches for something that indicates that an exploit was used to validade a pirate windows (ex.
loaders, BIOS exploits, etc.
).So, for example, if WAT finds a certain system file with a version diferent than it should be, you're "grounded".
Or if the windows system files say that you "have" a Dell OEM release, and it queries the BIOS and finds it's a non-Dell computer.
Things like that.
Or a game, after or even before an update, checking to see if it's the genuine release, by looking at the binaries.
Ops, most of them already do that.Although the principle makes some (twisted) sense (I'm pretty sure that checking to see if people hacked your precious DRM is valid), I don't quite agree with the whole "consumers are pirates/thiefs/crooks" anyway, so I'm keeping away from this update as long as I can.
And yes, I have a genuine Windows 7.
And no, even though I have "nothing to hide", I don't agree with manufacturers peeking inside my system, treating me as a potencial-criminal.
Let me remind you that "pre-crime" or "thought-crime" doesn't exist yet.
And I agree with *ONE* "call home" when I install the software.
Apart from that, let Microsoft or EA come in person to my house and I'll show them the purchase receipts.Oh, another example: the iPhone checking if its ROM (or BIOS or whatever) is intact, and you haven't "jailbreaked" your iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102194</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>karnal</author>
	<datestamp>1265916420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had to do work on a client's computer.  Has XP and WGA and all that.</p><p>1.  User got notified every time he logged in that his copy was not genuine.<br>2.  User could not open e-mail attachments in Outlook Express (let's not talk about how horrid this app is....)<br>3.  User's background could not be set to anything other than MS Blue.</p><p>So the functionality was reduced here.  I can't believe that they'd not do something to slightly annoy you to pay up.  The cost to fix?  $149, direct to MS via credit card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had to do work on a client 's computer .
Has XP and WGA and all that.1 .
User got notified every time he logged in that his copy was not genuine.2 .
User could not open e-mail attachments in Outlook Express ( let 's not talk about how horrid this app is.... ) 3 .
User 's background could not be set to anything other than MS Blue.So the functionality was reduced here .
I ca n't believe that they 'd not do something to slightly annoy you to pay up .
The cost to fix ?
$ 149 , direct to MS via credit card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had to do work on a client's computer.
Has XP and WGA and all that.1.
User got notified every time he logged in that his copy was not genuine.2.
User could not open e-mail attachments in Outlook Express (let's not talk about how horrid this app is....)3.
User's background could not be set to anything other than MS Blue.So the functionality was reduced here.
I can't believe that they'd not do something to slightly annoy you to pay up.
The cost to fix?
$149, direct to MS via credit card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103596</id>
	<title>Re:So bend over and bark like a dog</title>
	<author>KillShill</author>
	<datestamp>1265920920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you say "Yes" to O$X...</p><p>There is more than one evil empire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you say " Yes " to O $ X...There is more than one evil empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you say "Yes" to O$X...There is more than one evil empire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102048</id>
	<title>Re:So what do they do</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1265915760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will either not work because the guidelines they use will be too lenient to actually catch any piracy.  (this would be the case if this is purely done to appease stockholders)</p><p>OR</p><p>It will not work because the guidelines are too strict and there will be too many false positives.</p><p>No one really cares that Microsoft is trying to stop piracy of their products, they just don't want to be a false positive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will either not work because the guidelines they use will be too lenient to actually catch any piracy .
( this would be the case if this is purely done to appease stockholders ) ORIt will not work because the guidelines are too strict and there will be too many false positives.No one really cares that Microsoft is trying to stop piracy of their products , they just do n't want to be a false positive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will either not work because the guidelines they use will be too lenient to actually catch any piracy.
(this would be the case if this is purely done to appease stockholders)ORIt will not work because the guidelines are too strict and there will be too many false positives.No one really cares that Microsoft is trying to stop piracy of their products, they just don't want to be a false positive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102468</id>
	<title>Re:Just going to annoy legit customers</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1265917200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have a machine, purchased by my employer that has to be validated against the key server at the office.</i></p><p><i>The machine however is at my house. The only way to make it validate is to ensure that I'm connected to the VPN when it attempts to find its key.</i></p><p>You shouldn't be using a KMS-licensed computer away from the KMS server for such a long time.  The whole <i>point</i> of KMS is to reduce licensing headaches by having clients automatically aquire a volume license and activate themselves, all without going over the Internet.  Removing such a machine from the local network completely invalidates this.</p><p>If you have a computer at home, it should be converted to a MAK license so that it doesn't need to communicate with the KMS server.  Anyone mildly familiar with Windows 7 volume licensing should know this.  I suggest you (or your system administrator) take a look at the Win7 <a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd772269.aspx" title="microsoft.com">Volume Activation Deployment Guide</a> [microsoft.com] and the <a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd878528.aspx" title="microsoft.com">Volume Activation Planning Guide</a> [microsoft.com].  You know, the things you should read <i>before</i> you do a wide-scale deployment of a new system.</p><p><i>I'll probably end up cracking my legit install to stop this stupid behavior.</i></p><p>So instead of connecting to your VPN four times a year, you'll put yourself in a position of almost certainly getting blacklisted?  That makes sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a machine , purchased by my employer that has to be validated against the key server at the office.The machine however is at my house .
The only way to make it validate is to ensure that I 'm connected to the VPN when it attempts to find its key.You should n't be using a KMS-licensed computer away from the KMS server for such a long time .
The whole point of KMS is to reduce licensing headaches by having clients automatically aquire a volume license and activate themselves , all without going over the Internet .
Removing such a machine from the local network completely invalidates this.If you have a computer at home , it should be converted to a MAK license so that it does n't need to communicate with the KMS server .
Anyone mildly familiar with Windows 7 volume licensing should know this .
I suggest you ( or your system administrator ) take a look at the Win7 Volume Activation Deployment Guide [ microsoft.com ] and the Volume Activation Planning Guide [ microsoft.com ] .
You know , the things you should read before you do a wide-scale deployment of a new system.I 'll probably end up cracking my legit install to stop this stupid behavior.So instead of connecting to your VPN four times a year , you 'll put yourself in a position of almost certainly getting blacklisted ?
That makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a machine, purchased by my employer that has to be validated against the key server at the office.The machine however is at my house.
The only way to make it validate is to ensure that I'm connected to the VPN when it attempts to find its key.You shouldn't be using a KMS-licensed computer away from the KMS server for such a long time.
The whole point of KMS is to reduce licensing headaches by having clients automatically aquire a volume license and activate themselves, all without going over the Internet.
Removing such a machine from the local network completely invalidates this.If you have a computer at home, it should be converted to a MAK license so that it doesn't need to communicate with the KMS server.
Anyone mildly familiar with Windows 7 volume licensing should know this.
I suggest you (or your system administrator) take a look at the Win7 Volume Activation Deployment Guide [microsoft.com] and the Volume Activation Planning Guide [microsoft.com].
You know, the things you should read before you do a wide-scale deployment of a new system.I'll probably end up cracking my legit install to stop this stupid behavior.So instead of connecting to your VPN four times a year, you'll put yourself in a position of almost certainly getting blacklisted?
That makes sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102058</id>
	<title>There's an implicit guarantee in this...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265915820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an interesting an implicit guarantee in this.  By taking such steps as to certify that the software is "authentic", to some extent, Microsoft now accepts some responsibility for the state of a Windows installation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an interesting an implicit guarantee in this .
By taking such steps as to certify that the software is " authentic " , to some extent , Microsoft now accepts some responsibility for the state of a Windows installation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an interesting an implicit guarantee in this.
By taking such steps as to certify that the software is "authentic", to some extent, Microsoft now accepts some responsibility for the state of a Windows installation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102600</id>
	<title>Re:News flash</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1265917500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You license it on the condition that you agree to the EULA.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This has not been tested in court AFAIK. What if, for instance, I don't agree with their terms? I added a condition to the EULA stating that Steve Ballmer can come to my house and personally collect my copy if they disagree with my using their software under the amended terms. Oh, letting their program install on my computer signified their acceptance of the new terms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You license it on the condition that you agree to the EULA .
      This has not been tested in court AFAIK .
What if , for instance , I do n't agree with their terms ?
I added a condition to the EULA stating that Steve Ballmer can come to my house and personally collect my copy if they disagree with my using their software under the amended terms .
Oh , letting their program install on my computer signified their acceptance of the new terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You license it on the condition that you agree to the EULA.
      This has not been tested in court AFAIK.
What if, for instance, I don't agree with their terms?
I added a condition to the EULA stating that Steve Ballmer can come to my house and personally collect my copy if they disagree with my using their software under the amended terms.
Oh, letting their program install on my computer signified their acceptance of the new terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102044</id>
	<title>Re:Riiiiight!</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1265915760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you have enough reasons to quit using their shitty software yet?</p></div><p>Nope. Not until I can run the same software on Linux that they do at work, and it can run all my games, and I don't have to edit and compile my own drivers because the company decided not to make compatable 64-bit drivers for my soundcard for Linux.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have enough reasons to quit using their shitty software yet ? Nope .
Not until I can run the same software on Linux that they do at work , and it can run all my games , and I do n't have to edit and compile my own drivers because the company decided not to make compatable 64-bit drivers for my soundcard for Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have enough reasons to quit using their shitty software yet?Nope.
Not until I can run the same software on Linux that they do at work, and it can run all my games, and I don't have to edit and compile my own drivers because the company decided not to make compatable 64-bit drivers for my soundcard for Linux.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104224</id>
	<title>Re:Now with Continuous Auditing! (aka surveillance</title>
	<author>msclrhd</author>
	<datestamp>1265880120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this going to work with machines that don't have direct access to the internet (e.g. test machines)? Or machines on an isolated network? Or how about Virtual Machines (with or without snapshots)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this going to work with machines that do n't have direct access to the internet ( e.g .
test machines ) ?
Or machines on an isolated network ?
Or how about Virtual Machines ( with or without snapshots ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this going to work with machines that don't have direct access to the internet (e.g.
test machines)?
Or machines on an isolated network?
Or how about Virtual Machines (with or without snapshots)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102670</id>
	<title>Please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please go horribly wrong. Please go horribly wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please go horribly wrong .
Please go horribly wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please go horribly wrong.
Please go horribly wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104468</id>
	<title>Re:Just going to annoy legit customers</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1265881200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no cracking needed, my friend. Use a VPN to fake a local MAK authentication server and you're set.</p><p>Microsoft is totally fucking clueless - bypassed by a simple local server. Holy fuck why are they even allowed to stay in operation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no cracking needed , my friend .
Use a VPN to fake a local MAK authentication server and you 're set.Microsoft is totally fucking clueless - bypassed by a simple local server .
Holy fuck why are they even allowed to stay in operation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no cracking needed, my friend.
Use a VPN to fake a local MAK authentication server and you're set.Microsoft is totally fucking clueless - bypassed by a simple local server.
Holy fuck why are they even allowed to stay in operation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280</id>
	<title>Cmon people...</title>
	<author>Last\_Available\_Usern</author>
	<datestamp>1265916720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is so "major" and "disturbing" about this?  If you own a legitimate copy of Windows than this isn't an issue for you.  You can be sure if they crippled *anyones* PC for a reason other than piracy then they would be flogged to death in an instant.  The results of this action will of course come as a big surprise to people who purchased systems from non-reputable dealers with preloaded pirated versions of Windows, however, saying that's not ok is like saying DMV shouldn't run your car's VIN after a sale to insure a clean title (please don't pick apart the analogy, you get the point).

Once again, just more mongering and Microsoft hating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is so " major " and " disturbing " about this ?
If you own a legitimate copy of Windows than this is n't an issue for you .
You can be sure if they crippled * anyones * PC for a reason other than piracy then they would be flogged to death in an instant .
The results of this action will of course come as a big surprise to people who purchased systems from non-reputable dealers with preloaded pirated versions of Windows , however , saying that 's not ok is like saying DMV should n't run your car 's VIN after a sale to insure a clean title ( please do n't pick apart the analogy , you get the point ) .
Once again , just more mongering and Microsoft hating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is so "major" and "disturbing" about this?
If you own a legitimate copy of Windows than this isn't an issue for you.
You can be sure if they crippled *anyones* PC for a reason other than piracy then they would be flogged to death in an instant.
The results of this action will of course come as a big surprise to people who purchased systems from non-reputable dealers with preloaded pirated versions of Windows, however, saying that's not ok is like saying DMV shouldn't run your car's VIN after a sale to insure a clean title (please don't pick apart the analogy, you get the point).
Once again, just more mongering and Microsoft hating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106598</id>
	<title>Re:Hoooly crap...</title>
	<author>mystikkman</author>
	<datestamp>1265889480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't 'shut' it down, as I mentioned in my post.</p><p>What's to stop Redhat from releasing a spurious critical security update? Or Apple for OS X?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't 'shut ' it down , as I mentioned in my post.What 's to stop Redhat from releasing a spurious critical security update ?
Or Apple for OS X ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't 'shut' it down, as I mentioned in my post.What's to stop Redhat from releasing a spurious critical security update?
Or Apple for OS X?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110624</id>
	<title>Re:Just going to annoy legit customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Wow, what a wonderful extra hassle to deal with, on top of keeping the computer working.<br><br>I can see the value.<br><br>Christ, what a clusterfuck.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , what a wonderful extra hassle to deal with , on top of keeping the computer working.I can see the value.Christ , what a clusterfuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, what a wonderful extra hassle to deal with, on top of keeping the computer working.I can see the value.Christ, what a clusterfuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103336</id>
	<title>Re:The 1960s called...</title>
	<author>VTBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1265919960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have a "mainframe" of sorts...its called Windows Azure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p><a href="http://www.windowsazure.com/" title="windowsazure.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.windowsazure.com/</a> [windowsazure.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a " mainframe " of sorts...its called Windows Azure : ) http : //www.windowsazure.com/ [ windowsazure.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a "mainframe" of sorts...its called Windows Azure :)http://www.windowsazure.com/ [windowsazure.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102238</id>
	<title>Re:Can it be avoided?</title>
	<author>mystikkman</author>
	<datestamp>1265916540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it's optional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's optional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's optional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107352</id>
	<title>Re:Really bad strategy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA, the systems still receive security updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA , the systems still receive security updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA, the systems still receive security updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101842</id>
	<title>Really bad strategy</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1265915040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The false positives will turn into real positives.  When a machine gets marked as non-genuine, it stops receiving updates.  Which means is WILL get 0wned by the next zero-day attack.</p><p>They are basically just manufacturing more spambot machines with this strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The false positives will turn into real positives .
When a machine gets marked as non-genuine , it stops receiving updates .
Which means is WILL get 0wned by the next zero-day attack.They are basically just manufacturing more spambot machines with this strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The false positives will turn into real positives.
When a machine gets marked as non-genuine, it stops receiving updates.
Which means is WILL get 0wned by the next zero-day attack.They are basically just manufacturing more spambot machines with this strategy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102154</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1265916240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>4. The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.</i></p><p>Ah, so you're actively <i>trying</i> to limit your deployment base?  Microsoft is only relevant because it's everywhere.  It's only <i>everywhere</i> because it historically has been trivial to pirate.  Nice work shooting yourselves in the foot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.Ah , so you 're actively trying to limit your deployment base ?
Microsoft is only relevant because it 's everywhere .
It 's only everywhere because it historically has been trivial to pirate .
Nice work shooting yourselves in the foot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.Ah, so you're actively trying to limit your deployment base?
Microsoft is only relevant because it's everywhere.
It's only everywhere because it historically has been trivial to pirate.
Nice work shooting yourselves in the foot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102872</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Voluntary patch that is automatically applied? You've got a funny concept of "voluntary".<br>2. Whiny popups don't count as a reduction in functionality, but tomorrow, MS will change that policy.<br>3. Wrong. Badly thought out propaganda.<br>4. First part, yeah, you're trying to reduce pirated copies. Second part, bullshit. I know a whole lot more legit users filled with malware and viruses than pirate users.<br>5. Buuuuulllllshit.<br>6. Yes, you're very careful not to piss off your business clients, we get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Voluntary patch that is automatically applied ?
You 've got a funny concept of " voluntary " .2 .
Whiny popups do n't count as a reduction in functionality , but tomorrow , MS will change that policy.3 .
Wrong. Badly thought out propaganda.4 .
First part , yeah , you 're trying to reduce pirated copies .
Second part , bullshit .
I know a whole lot more legit users filled with malware and viruses than pirate users.5 .
Buuuuulllllshit.6. Yes , you 're very careful not to piss off your business clients , we get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Voluntary patch that is automatically applied?
You've got a funny concept of "voluntary".2.
Whiny popups don't count as a reduction in functionality, but tomorrow, MS will change that policy.3.
Wrong. Badly thought out propaganda.4.
First part, yeah, you're trying to reduce pirated copies.
Second part, bullshit.
I know a whole lot more legit users filled with malware and viruses than pirate users.5.
Buuuuulllllshit.6. Yes, you're very careful not to piss off your business clients, we get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102780</id>
	<title>Re:Note to self....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...skip update KB71033.</p></div><p>...skip Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...skip update KB71033....skip Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...skip update KB71033....skip Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102996</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Elbart</author>
	<datestamp>1265918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Voluntary? So it won't be included in SP1?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Voluntary ?
So it wo n't be included in SP1 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voluntary?
So it won't be included in SP1?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774</id>
	<title>Note to self....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...skip update KB71033.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...skip update KB71033 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...skip update KB71033.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101990</id>
	<title>They're already doing too much.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1265915640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I take it MS is supposed to do nothing and hope that you'll be nice and pay them?</i></p><p>Microsoft isn't "doing nothing". Even without this additional step Windows 7 is already more aggressive than any other software I own, and their profitability isn't even vaguely at risk. There is nowhere near adequate justification for them to take this additional step.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take it MS is supposed to do nothing and hope that you 'll be nice and pay them ? Microsoft is n't " doing nothing " .
Even without this additional step Windows 7 is already more aggressive than any other software I own , and their profitability is n't even vaguely at risk .
There is nowhere near adequate justification for them to take this additional step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take it MS is supposed to do nothing and hope that you'll be nice and pay them?Microsoft isn't "doing nothing".
Even without this additional step Windows 7 is already more aggressive than any other software I own, and their profitability isn't even vaguely at risk.
There is nowhere near adequate justification for them to take this additional step.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102310</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. I don't volunteer to allow MS to give my computer a rectal exam on any interval, not 90 days, not ever.<br>1a. How long before it is rolled out as a "critical" security update, or required to install a service pack or some other essential update?  You and I and everyone else here know that WAT will be de-facto required at a certain point in time.<br>2. I (and many others on this site) consider annoying nag messages being shoved into my face repeatedly to be "reduced functionality" as it gets in the way of me using the product.<br>3. News flash: This WILL NOT stop any serious pirate from using the software without paying for it.  All it will do is annoy the hell out of millions of people who have and continue to heap piles of cash upon Microsoft even after being repeatedly insulted.<br>4. The goal is to make more money for Microsoft at the expense of the time and money of millions of legitimate customers.<br>5. Privacy policy != source code, privacy policy != protocol, the privacy policy can say whatever the hell MS wants it to say, and the software can do whatever the hell Microsoft wants it to do now, and that behavior can be changed at any time in the future via an insidious update with an official description that is at best ambiguous.<br>6. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, even MS isn't stupid enough to piss off their corporate customers but they will happily bend over retail customers, 99.999\% of which have no idea that this is going on.</p><p>Everything Microsoft does is a little too Orwellian considering their market share for OS and productivity software and their well documented and litigated history of treating their customers like garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
I do n't volunteer to allow MS to give my computer a rectal exam on any interval , not 90 days , not ever.1a .
How long before it is rolled out as a " critical " security update , or required to install a service pack or some other essential update ?
You and I and everyone else here know that WAT will be de-facto required at a certain point in time.2 .
I ( and many others on this site ) consider annoying nag messages being shoved into my face repeatedly to be " reduced functionality " as it gets in the way of me using the product.3 .
News flash : This WILL NOT stop any serious pirate from using the software without paying for it .
All it will do is annoy the hell out of millions of people who have and continue to heap piles of cash upon Microsoft even after being repeatedly insulted.4 .
The goal is to make more money for Microsoft at the expense of the time and money of millions of legitimate customers.5 .
Privacy policy ! = source code , privacy policy ! = protocol , the privacy policy can say whatever the hell MS wants it to say , and the software can do whatever the hell Microsoft wants it to do now , and that behavior can be changed at any time in the future via an insidious update with an official description that is at best ambiguous.6 .
That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside , even MS is n't stupid enough to piss off their corporate customers but they will happily bend over retail customers , 99.999 \ % of which have no idea that this is going on.Everything Microsoft does is a little too Orwellian considering their market share for OS and productivity software and their well documented and litigated history of treating their customers like garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
I don't volunteer to allow MS to give my computer a rectal exam on any interval, not 90 days, not ever.1a.
How long before it is rolled out as a "critical" security update, or required to install a service pack or some other essential update?
You and I and everyone else here know that WAT will be de-facto required at a certain point in time.2.
I (and many others on this site) consider annoying nag messages being shoved into my face repeatedly to be "reduced functionality" as it gets in the way of me using the product.3.
News flash: This WILL NOT stop any serious pirate from using the software without paying for it.
All it will do is annoy the hell out of millions of people who have and continue to heap piles of cash upon Microsoft even after being repeatedly insulted.4.
The goal is to make more money for Microsoft at the expense of the time and money of millions of legitimate customers.5.
Privacy policy != source code, privacy policy != protocol, the privacy policy can say whatever the hell MS wants it to say, and the software can do whatever the hell Microsoft wants it to do now, and that behavior can be changed at any time in the future via an insidious update with an official description that is at best ambiguous.6.
That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, even MS isn't stupid enough to piss off their corporate customers but they will happily bend over retail customers, 99.999\% of which have no idea that this is going on.Everything Microsoft does is a little too Orwellian considering their market share for OS and productivity software and their well documented and litigated history of treating their customers like garbage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104176</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1. Voluntary patch</i></p><p>This time around, but will SP1 install without it (or install it for me)?  At that rate, all patches are "voluntary", Microsoft doesn't force me to install any patches, it's my decision if I want to protect myself against security threats and/or fix product defects.</p><p><i>2. When non-genuine copies deteced, OS functionality is NOT reduced</i></p><p>So it won't disable the OS after 30 days, like an unactivated version would?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Voluntary patchThis time around , but will SP1 install without it ( or install it for me ) ?
At that rate , all patches are " voluntary " , Microsoft does n't force me to install any patches , it 's my decision if I want to protect myself against security threats and/or fix product defects.2 .
When non-genuine copies deteced , OS functionality is NOT reducedSo it wo n't disable the OS after 30 days , like an unactivated version would ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Voluntary patchThis time around, but will SP1 install without it (or install it for me)?
At that rate, all patches are "voluntary", Microsoft doesn't force me to install any patches, it's my decision if I want to protect myself against security threats and/or fix product defects.2.
When non-genuine copies deteced, OS functionality is NOT reducedSo it won't disable the OS after 30 days, like an unactivated version would?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103436</id>
	<title>Bing market share</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265920320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WAT will link through Bing so that each verification will count as a search. This will double Bing's market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WAT will link through Bing so that each verification will count as a search .
This will double Bing 's market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WAT will link through Bing so that each verification will count as a search.
This will double Bing's market share.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102006</id>
	<title>So bend over and bark like a dog</title>
	<author>rimcrazy</author>
	<datestamp>1265915700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just say NO to Micro$oft</p><p>Me I run OSX and FC8 thank you very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just say NO to Micro $ oftMe I run OSX and FC8 thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just say NO to Micro$oftMe I run OSX and FC8 thank you very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</id>
	<title>WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>VTBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1265915340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>//Microsoft Employee here//</p><p>If you read the blog post it has some valid points about how it works:</p><p>1. Voluntary patch<br>2. When non-genuine copies deteced, OS functionality is NOT reduced<br>3. Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.<br>4. The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.<br>5. No personally identifiable information is transmitted.  Details on this can be found in ANY of our privacy policies which are standard across all Microsoft products.<br>6. It does not apply to any enterprise installations where Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) is used. @FranTaylor, lots of people use Windows on a server...what planet are you one?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>The slashdot headline is a little too Orwellian considering the body of the blog post.  Looking forward to all the responses...I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>//Microsoft Employee here//If you read the blog post it has some valid points about how it works : 1 .
Voluntary patch2 .
When non-genuine copies deteced , OS functionality is NOT reduced3 .
Yes , Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you 're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people do n't know they are.4 .
The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.5 .
No personally identifiable information is transmitted .
Details on this can be found in ANY of our privacy policies which are standard across all Microsoft products.6 .
It does not apply to any enterprise installations where Windows Server Update Services ( WSUS ) is used .
@ FranTaylor , lots of people use Windows on a server...what planet are you one ?
: ) The slashdot headline is a little too Orwellian considering the body of the blog post .
Looking forward to all the responses...I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>//Microsoft Employee here//If you read the blog post it has some valid points about how it works:1.
Voluntary patch2.
When non-genuine copies deteced, OS functionality is NOT reduced3.
Yes, Microsoft does decided to notify/annoy you that you're not using genuine software which is a good thing because most people don't know they are.4.
The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.5.
No personally identifiable information is transmitted.
Details on this can be found in ANY of our privacy policies which are standard across all Microsoft products.6.
It does not apply to any enterprise installations where Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) is used.
@FranTaylor, lots of people use Windows on a server...what planet are you one?
:)The slashdot headline is a little too Orwellian considering the body of the blog post.
Looking forward to all the responses...I think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110496</id>
	<title>Get a mac.</title>
	<author>garote</author>
	<datestamp>1265966820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, seriously.</p><p>OS X client version, from 10.0 all the way up to 10.6, does not phone home for ANYTHING, except to query "time.apple.com" to synchronize your clock (and you can change that) and once when you first log in to check for software updates (and you can shut it permanently off after that).  No activation.  No mandatory updates.  No internet connection needed.</p><p>If your system is hosed for anything short of a dead hard drive, you can reinstall and your home folder will be imported, along with your apps, and the rest of the system will be paved over and working again.  Or if you hooked up a Time Machine volume, you can restore EVERYTHING back the way it was up to a month ago.</p><p>I'm sure you know - your time is valuable.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , seriously.OS X client version , from 10.0 all the way up to 10.6 , does not phone home for ANYTHING , except to query " time.apple.com " to synchronize your clock ( and you can change that ) and once when you first log in to check for software updates ( and you can shut it permanently off after that ) .
No activation .
No mandatory updates .
No internet connection needed.If your system is hosed for anything short of a dead hard drive , you can reinstall and your home folder will be imported , along with your apps , and the rest of the system will be paved over and working again .
Or if you hooked up a Time Machine volume , you can restore EVERYTHING back the way it was up to a month ago.I 'm sure you know - your time is valuable .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, seriously.OS X client version, from 10.0 all the way up to 10.6, does not phone home for ANYTHING, except to query "time.apple.com" to synchronize your clock (and you can change that) and once when you first log in to check for software updates (and you can shut it permanently off after that).
No activation.
No mandatory updates.
No internet connection needed.If your system is hosed for anything short of a dead hard drive, you can reinstall and your home folder will be imported, along with your apps, and the rest of the system will be paved over and working again.
Or if you hooked up a Time Machine volume, you can restore EVERYTHING back the way it was up to a month ago.I'm sure you know - your time is valuable.
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103722</id>
	<title>Not necessarily voluntary</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1265921340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your third party software requires you to have a fully patched machine in order to receive support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your third party software requires you to have a fully patched machine in order to receive support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your third party software requires you to have a fully patched machine in order to receive support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102426</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you ignoring the fact that when Microsoft finally shuts down the Windows 7 verification server, your copy of Windows will decide that it's pirated and stop working properly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you ignoring the fact that when Microsoft finally shuts down the Windows 7 verification server , your copy of Windows will decide that it 's pirated and stop working properly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you ignoring the fact that when Microsoft finally shuts down the Windows 7 verification server, your copy of Windows will decide that it's pirated and stop working properly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101700</id>
	<title>False Positives?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how many false positives this will generate? The thing is, for every person who pirates Windows 7, there is a fairly decent chance that they will be doing so with an activation code which a genuine user may have purchased. I wonder if MS has figured out some way to deal with this issue? I wouldn't bet on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many false positives this will generate ?
The thing is , for every person who pirates Windows 7 , there is a fairly decent chance that they will be doing so with an activation code which a genuine user may have purchased .
I wonder if MS has figured out some way to deal with this issue ?
I would n't bet on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many false positives this will generate?
The thing is, for every person who pirates Windows 7, there is a fairly decent chance that they will be doing so with an activation code which a genuine user may have purchased.
I wonder if MS has figured out some way to deal with this issue?
I wouldn't bet on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102496</id>
	<title>Re:Really bad strategy</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265917260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The false positives will turn into real positives.  When a machine gets marked as non-genuine, it stops receiving updates.  Which means is WILL get 0wned by the next zero-day attack.</p><p>They are basically just manufacturing more spambot machines with this strategy.</p></div><p>Unless they've changed their policy very recently, non-genuine Windows machines will still receive security updates.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The false positives will turn into real positives .
When a machine gets marked as non-genuine , it stops receiving updates .
Which means is WILL get 0wned by the next zero-day attack.They are basically just manufacturing more spambot machines with this strategy.Unless they 've changed their policy very recently , non-genuine Windows machines will still receive security updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The false positives will turn into real positives.
When a machine gets marked as non-genuine, it stops receiving updates.
Which means is WILL get 0wned by the next zero-day attack.They are basically just manufacturing more spambot machines with this strategy.Unless they've changed their policy very recently, non-genuine Windows machines will still receive security updates.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103116</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265919060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jeez, you should have been a writer for Three's Company.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::rolls eyes::</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeez , you should have been a writer for Three 's Company .
: : rolls eyes : :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeez, you should have been a writer for Three's Company.
::rolls eyes::</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102412</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265917020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL WAT!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL WAT !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL WAT!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103644</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265921100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>4. The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.</p></div><p>Not true. The most downloaded versions of windows on any pirate site are the exact same iso's as the ones on Microsoft's servers. The only difference is the inclusion of some corporate VLK.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.Not true .
The most downloaded versions of windows on any pirate site are the exact same iso 's as the ones on Microsoft 's servers .
The only difference is the inclusion of some corporate VLK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
The goal is reduce the number of Windows installations using pirated copies many of which include malicious code.Not true.
The most downloaded versions of windows on any pirate site are the exact same iso's as the ones on Microsoft's servers.
The only difference is the inclusion of some corporate VLK.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102358</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i really don't see an issue with this tbh. (this coming from someone who up until a few weeks ago, has never legally owned a Microsoft product) right up from dos I've always used pirated copies. any one who does does so with the full knowledge that it isn't legal, and (unless they are really stupid) does so with the assumption that at some point it can cause an issue.</p><p>the people that don't know they are running a pirated copy are the people who will get burned by this, and those are the same kind of people generally that will bitch to whomever they bought it from, and rightfully so, the shady sobs that sell pirated software are the people that acctually cause loss (my opinion).</p><p>really people apply some common sense and less nerd rage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i really do n't see an issue with this tbh .
( this coming from someone who up until a few weeks ago , has never legally owned a Microsoft product ) right up from dos I 've always used pirated copies .
any one who does does so with the full knowledge that it is n't legal , and ( unless they are really stupid ) does so with the assumption that at some point it can cause an issue.the people that do n't know they are running a pirated copy are the people who will get burned by this , and those are the same kind of people generally that will bitch to whomever they bought it from , and rightfully so , the shady sobs that sell pirated software are the people that acctually cause loss ( my opinion ) .really people apply some common sense and less nerd rage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i really don't see an issue with this tbh.
(this coming from someone who up until a few weeks ago, has never legally owned a Microsoft product) right up from dos I've always used pirated copies.
any one who does does so with the full knowledge that it isn't legal, and (unless they are really stupid) does so with the assumption that at some point it can cause an issue.the people that don't know they are running a pirated copy are the people who will get burned by this, and those are the same kind of people generally that will bitch to whomever they bought it from, and rightfully so, the shady sobs that sell pirated software are the people that acctually cause loss (my opinion).really people apply some common sense and less nerd rage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102834</id>
	<title>THE Windows Activation Technologies</title>
	<author>Caviller</author>
	<datestamp>1265918220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank god they left the 'THE' off the begining of it
<br> <br>
<b>Customer Service:</b>  What can I help you with today.
<br> <br>
<b>Customer:</b>  Your TWAT broke my computer!!
<br> <br>
<b>Customer Service:</b> "FILL\_IN\_THE\_BLANK"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank god they left the 'THE ' off the begining of it Customer Service : What can I help you with today .
Customer : Your TWAT broke my computer ! !
Customer Service : " FILL \ _IN \ _THE \ _BLANK "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank god they left the 'THE' off the begining of it
 
Customer Service:  What can I help you with today.
Customer:  Your TWAT broke my computer!!
Customer Service: "FILL\_IN\_THE\_BLANK"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31116450</id>
	<title>Just a minor upgrade...</title>
	<author>TemporalBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1266003720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I had to dive into this a little in fall of 2009. Starting with Win7
and Windows Server 2008 by default Windows will phone home to validate your
license every week. You can configure this somewhat, but it becomes problematic
if you do not have an Internet connection - then Windows invalidates your valid
license when it can't reach the Microsoft servers. The only way to disable this
functionality is with a volume license - and even then, you have to go through
special steps via the command-line to get it to validate once and be done.
<br> <br>
More information available here:<br>
<a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979805.aspx" title="microsoft.com">http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979805.aspx</a> [microsoft.com] <br>
<a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc303276.aspx" title="microsoft.com">http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc303276.aspx</a> [microsoft.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I had to dive into this a little in fall of 2009 .
Starting with Win7 and Windows Server 2008 by default Windows will phone home to validate your license every week .
You can configure this somewhat , but it becomes problematic if you do not have an Internet connection - then Windows invalidates your valid license when it ca n't reach the Microsoft servers .
The only way to disable this functionality is with a volume license - and even then , you have to go through special steps via the command-line to get it to validate once and be done .
More information available here : http : //technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979805.aspx [ microsoft.com ] http : //technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc303276.aspx [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I had to dive into this a little in fall of 2009.
Starting with Win7
and Windows Server 2008 by default Windows will phone home to validate your
license every week.
You can configure this somewhat, but it becomes problematic
if you do not have an Internet connection - then Windows invalidates your valid
license when it can't reach the Microsoft servers.
The only way to disable this
functionality is with a volume license - and even then, you have to go through
special steps via the command-line to get it to validate once and be done.
More information available here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979805.aspx [microsoft.com] 
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc303276.aspx [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103170</id>
	<title>Re:WAT is Voluntary and Doesn't Impact OS Usage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265919300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a Microsoft Employee, too, and I think the article headline isn't Orwellian enough. If you all only knew...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a Microsoft Employee , too , and I think the article headline is n't Orwellian enough .
If you all only knew.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a Microsoft Employee, too, and I think the article headline isn't Orwellian enough.
If you all only knew...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102820</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this is a stupid question.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Can you even have a Windows machine without an Internet connection any more?
</p><p>
Windows machines on manufacturing equipment often have no external Internet connection. Nor should they. They don't need to talk to anything outside, ever.  Many still run Windows 2000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you even have a Windows machine without an Internet connection any more ?
Windows machines on manufacturing equipment often have no external Internet connection .
Nor should they .
They do n't need to talk to anything outside , ever .
Many still run Windows 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Can you even have a Windows machine without an Internet connection any more?
Windows machines on manufacturing equipment often have no external Internet connection.
Nor should they.
They don't need to talk to anything outside, ever.
Many still run Windows 2000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104276</id>
	<title>Skip the update</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this as simple as just opting not to install this update?  Problem solved!  Only someone who doesn't read what each update is would be the person subjected to getting it.  I just worry when SP1 comes out they'll probably bundle this update in there with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this as simple as just opting not to install this update ?
Problem solved !
Only someone who does n't read what each update is would be the person subjected to getting it .
I just worry when SP1 comes out they 'll probably bundle this update in there with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this as simple as just opting not to install this update?
Problem solved!
Only someone who doesn't read what each update is would be the person subjected to getting it.
I just worry when SP1 comes out they'll probably bundle this update in there with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109376</id>
	<title>Is anyone really surprised here?</title>
	<author>mrdtr</author>
	<datestamp>1265907960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact is most people will bitch and complain, but you'll never do anything about it. You'll continue to use and buy their products - which to them means that you are OK with how they treat you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is most people will bitch and complain , but you 'll never do anything about it .
You 'll continue to use and buy their products - which to them means that you are OK with how they treat you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is most people will bitch and complain, but you'll never do anything about it.
You'll continue to use and buy their products - which to them means that you are OK with how they treat you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102528</id>
	<title>Re:Note to self....</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1265917380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get spare box (or VM, or even your own machine if it's beefy enough), install <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=a206ae20-2695-436c-9578-3403a7d46e40&amp;displaylang=en" title="microsoft.com">WSUS</a> [microsoft.com] (Supported Operating Systems: Windows 7; Windows Server 2003; Windows Server 2008; Windows Vista; Windows XP Service Pack 3, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Small Business Server 2008, Windows Small Business Server 2003), point clients at WSUS either with a GPO or in local policy (gpedit.msc), decline KB71033 (if it even gets pushed through WSUS, which it probably won't; WGA didn't), sit back and relax.</p><p>This is also handy for any other "critical" updates that you might want to avoid, or any updates that are incompatible with your system, or may cause errors (Like <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/security-patch-results-in-bsod-stops-windows-from-booting.ars" title="arstechnica.com">KB977165</a> [arstechnica.com]), especially in environments where other people have administrator access to your machine and like to click things without reading them or you're managing several machines (friends, family, housemates, girlfriends, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get spare box ( or VM , or even your own machine if it 's beefy enough ) , install WSUS [ microsoft.com ] ( Supported Operating Systems : Windows 7 ; Windows Server 2003 ; Windows Server 2008 ; Windows Vista ; Windows XP Service Pack 3 , Windows Server 2008 R2 , Windows Small Business Server 2008 , Windows Small Business Server 2003 ) , point clients at WSUS either with a GPO or in local policy ( gpedit.msc ) , decline KB71033 ( if it even gets pushed through WSUS , which it probably wo n't ; WGA did n't ) , sit back and relax.This is also handy for any other " critical " updates that you might want to avoid , or any updates that are incompatible with your system , or may cause errors ( Like KB977165 [ arstechnica.com ] ) , especially in environments where other people have administrator access to your machine and like to click things without reading them or you 're managing several machines ( friends , family , housemates , girlfriends , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get spare box (or VM, or even your own machine if it's beefy enough), install WSUS [microsoft.com] (Supported Operating Systems: Windows 7; Windows Server 2003; Windows Server 2008; Windows Vista; Windows XP Service Pack 3, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Small Business Server 2008, Windows Small Business Server 2003), point clients at WSUS either with a GPO or in local policy (gpedit.msc), decline KB71033 (if it even gets pushed through WSUS, which it probably won't; WGA didn't), sit back and relax.This is also handy for any other "critical" updates that you might want to avoid, or any updates that are incompatible with your system, or may cause errors (Like KB977165 [arstechnica.com]), especially in environments where other people have administrator access to your machine and like to click things without reading them or you're managing several machines (friends, family, housemates, girlfriends, etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104138</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe this is a stupid question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How does this work when the machine is not connected to the internet?</p></div><p>My best guess is: it doesn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this work when the machine is not connected to the internet ? My best guess is : it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this work when the machine is not connected to the internet?My best guess is: it doesn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104916</id>
	<title>Re:The 1960s called...</title>
	<author>drooling-dog</author>
	<datestamp>1265883000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>earlier models of mainframes actually had mechanical car-like odometers that were read by a "meter reader" like the gas company, and IBM would send them a bill.</p></div><p>Isn't that how "the Cloud" works?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>earlier models of mainframes actually had mechanical car-like odometers that were read by a " meter reader " like the gas company , and IBM would send them a bill.Is n't that how " the Cloud " works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>earlier models of mainframes actually had mechanical car-like odometers that were read by a "meter reader" like the gas company, and IBM would send them a bill.Isn't that how "the Cloud" works?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102514</id>
	<title>RAR</title>
	<author>Moheeheeko</author>
	<datestamp>1265917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this new thing microsoft does to reduce piracy INFURIATES ME, and i shal offer no idea as to what they should do instead.


can i have +5 insightful now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>this new thing microsoft does to reduce piracy INFURIATES ME , and i shal offer no idea as to what they should do instead .
can i have + 5 insightful now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this new thing microsoft does to reduce piracy INFURIATES ME, and i shal offer no idea as to what they should do instead.
can i have +5 insightful now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102844</id>
	<title>What happens if they can't phone home?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of my PC's are on an internal gaming LAN with NO connection to the great outdoors, but this begs the question what happens if they can't call<br>their alien overlord? It's more of an academic question anyway, since most of my game boxes run Win 98....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of my PC 's are on an internal gaming LAN with NO connection to the great outdoors , but this begs the question what happens if they ca n't calltheir alien overlord ?
It 's more of an academic question anyway , since most of my game boxes run Win 98... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of my PC's are on an internal gaming LAN with NO connection to the great outdoors, but this begs the question what happens if they can't calltheir alien overlord?
It's more of an academic question anyway, since most of my game boxes run Win 98....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108856</id>
	<title>Re:So what do they do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265902740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Steps like these need to be taken because, well, people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.</p></div><p> 'the right thing' being whatever 'they' tell you to do, right?  Can I do the same thing with the money I paid them? oh right, I can't yank on the strings.. they can go pound sand along with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steps like these need to be taken because , well , people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head .
'the right thing ' being whatever 'they ' tell you to do , right ?
Can I do the same thing with the money I paid them ?
oh right , I ca n't yank on the strings.. they can go pound sand along with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steps like these need to be taken because, well, people pretty much can not be trusted to do the right thing without the fear of a reprisal looming over their head.
'the right thing' being whatever 'they' tell you to do, right?
Can I do the same thing with the money I paid them?
oh right, I can't yank on the strings.. they can go pound sand along with you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103480</id>
	<title>now we can expect DoS attacks via WAT</title>
	<author>deisher</author>
	<datestamp>1265920500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once some virus writer figures out how to change a system's "signature" to look like Windows has been pirated, things will get more interesting for Microsoft customer support.  Souunds like a genuine disadvantage to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once some virus writer figures out how to change a system 's " signature " to look like Windows has been pirated , things will get more interesting for Microsoft customer support .
Souunds like a genuine disadvantage to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once some virus writer figures out how to change a system's "signature" to look like Windows has been pirated, things will get more interesting for Microsoft customer support.
Souunds like a genuine disadvantage to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104842</id>
	<title>play in offline mode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265882640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only play windows 7 single player.  This way I avoid the multi-player activation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only play windows 7 single player .
This way I avoid the multi-player activation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only play windows 7 single player.
This way I avoid the multi-player activation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105256</id>
	<title>Your DBS provider probably does this already...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265884200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work a satellite broadcasting company, and the basic way that subscribers cannot get free service on a pawn'd receiver or something.  The smart cards in the box automatically deauthenticate every week or so.  Unless our broadcast center sends out fresh encrypted messages to the receiver (based on our billing system to make sure you've paid), a box won't work more than a week without disabling itself.

I suppose no consumers will ever have this problem unless they share their product key.  I can't think of any inappropriate behavior this is: you don't own Windows, you license your right to use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work a satellite broadcasting company , and the basic way that subscribers can not get free service on a pawn 'd receiver or something .
The smart cards in the box automatically deauthenticate every week or so .
Unless our broadcast center sends out fresh encrypted messages to the receiver ( based on our billing system to make sure you 've paid ) , a box wo n't work more than a week without disabling itself .
I suppose no consumers will ever have this problem unless they share their product key .
I ca n't think of any inappropriate behavior this is : you do n't own Windows , you license your right to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work a satellite broadcasting company, and the basic way that subscribers cannot get free service on a pawn'd receiver or something.
The smart cards in the box automatically deauthenticate every week or so.
Unless our broadcast center sends out fresh encrypted messages to the receiver (based on our billing system to make sure you've paid), a box won't work more than a week without disabling itself.
I suppose no consumers will ever have this problem unless they share their product key.
I can't think of any inappropriate behavior this is: you don't own Windows, you license your right to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107018</id>
	<title>Re:Who's On First?</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1265891160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft Phone Support: Thank you for calling Microsoft, all calls may be monitored for training purposes and to ensure quality of service. Now, what seems to be the problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Customer: That's right.<br>*pause*<br>Microsoft Phone Support:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ? Sir, you have to give me more information.<br>Customer: I'll tell you my problem. WAT is my problem.<br>Microsoft Phone Support: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question, you haven't told me yet.<br>Customer: I didn't ask you a question.<br>Microsoft Phone Support: Then why did you call? Why do you need help?<br>Customer: WAT's wrong. I can't activate Windows 7 but I just bought it!<br>Microsoft Phone Support: Okay, let's try to diagnose this problem. What's wrong?<br>Customer: Yes, I already said that, I know WAT is wrong! That is precisely why I called!<br>Microsoft Phone Support: Wait, why are you calling?<br>Customer: WAT!<br>Microsoft Phone Support: I said, why are you calling?!<br>Customer: WAT! WAT, GODDAMNIT, WAT!!!</p></div><p>I nearly peed myself.<br>It's funny, because I can see something like this playing itself out in real life, more than once.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Phone Support : Thank you for calling Microsoft , all calls may be monitored for training purposes and to ensure quality of service .
Now , what seems to be the problem ...Customer : That 's right .
* pause * Microsoft Phone Support : ... ? Sir , you have to give me more information.Customer : I 'll tell you my problem .
WAT is my problem.Microsoft Phone Support : Sir , I do n't know the answer to that question , you have n't told me yet.Customer : I did n't ask you a question.Microsoft Phone Support : Then why did you call ?
Why do you need help ? Customer : WAT 's wrong .
I ca n't activate Windows 7 but I just bought it ! Microsoft Phone Support : Okay , let 's try to diagnose this problem .
What 's wrong ? Customer : Yes , I already said that , I know WAT is wrong !
That is precisely why I called ! Microsoft Phone Support : Wait , why are you calling ? Customer : WAT ! Microsoft Phone Support : I said , why are you calling ?
! Customer : WAT !
WAT , GODDAMNIT , WAT ! !
! I nearly peed myself.It 's funny , because I can see something like this playing itself out in real life , more than once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Phone Support: Thank you for calling Microsoft, all calls may be monitored for training purposes and to ensure quality of service.
Now, what seems to be the problem ...Customer: That's right.
*pause*Microsoft Phone Support: ... ? Sir, you have to give me more information.Customer: I'll tell you my problem.
WAT is my problem.Microsoft Phone Support: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question, you haven't told me yet.Customer: I didn't ask you a question.Microsoft Phone Support: Then why did you call?
Why do you need help?Customer: WAT's wrong.
I can't activate Windows 7 but I just bought it!Microsoft Phone Support: Okay, let's try to diagnose this problem.
What's wrong?Customer: Yes, I already said that, I know WAT is wrong!
That is precisely why I called!Microsoft Phone Support: Wait, why are you calling?Customer: WAT!Microsoft Phone Support: I said, why are you calling?
!Customer: WAT!
WAT, GODDAMNIT, WAT!!
!I nearly peed myself.It's funny, because I can see something like this playing itself out in real life, more than once.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104750</id>
	<title>Re:Note to self....</title>
	<author>holiggan</author>
	<datestamp>1265882280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. Although I have a genuine Windows 7, I find this a bit too much. Now I know which update to hide and never see again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Although I have a genuine Windows 7 , I find this a bit too much .
Now I know which update to hide and never see again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Although I have a genuine Windows 7, I find this a bit too much.
Now I know which update to hide and never see again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105910</id>
	<title>on the bright side...</title>
	<author>kaini</author>
	<datestamp>1265886420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I eagerly await the many 'Hitler finds out his copy of Windows 7 is not genuine' <i>Downfall</i> videos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I eagerly await the many 'Hitler finds out his copy of Windows 7 is not genuine ' Downfall videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I eagerly await the many 'Hitler finds out his copy of Windows 7 is not genuine' Downfall videos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756</id>
	<title>Giving up on the server market, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who in their right mind would use Windows on a server any more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who in their right mind would use Windows on a server any more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who in their right mind would use Windows on a server any more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104030</id>
	<title>Good!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265879340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fully and wholly support Microsoft in this choice.</p><p>First off, they didn't take into account machines that are either behind a restrictive firewall, not on the internet (grandma's home PC), or laptops in an airplane (or the like).  When it goes off for them, those users are totally screwed, aren't they?</p><p>Second, false positives.  Excellent, tell people their computer won't work right because some company across the country screwed up.</p><p>Third, privacy concerns.  Goodbye to them, as now Microsoft will know you use their software, and who's to say they can't execute some of the other aspects of their EULA and simply copy things from your computer.</p><p>All of this is WONDERFUL to those of us in the FOSS movement.  To any who are ready to switch to a real operating system, where your computer, your privacy and what you do with it are totally your own, I'm here to help you install Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully and wholly support Microsoft in this choice.First off , they did n't take into account machines that are either behind a restrictive firewall , not on the internet ( grandma 's home PC ) , or laptops in an airplane ( or the like ) .
When it goes off for them , those users are totally screwed , are n't they ? Second , false positives .
Excellent , tell people their computer wo n't work right because some company across the country screwed up.Third , privacy concerns .
Goodbye to them , as now Microsoft will know you use their software , and who 's to say they ca n't execute some of the other aspects of their EULA and simply copy things from your computer.All of this is WONDERFUL to those of us in the FOSS movement .
To any who are ready to switch to a real operating system , where your computer , your privacy and what you do with it are totally your own , I 'm here to help you install Linux : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fully and wholly support Microsoft in this choice.First off, they didn't take into account machines that are either behind a restrictive firewall, not on the internet (grandma's home PC), or laptops in an airplane (or the like).
When it goes off for them, those users are totally screwed, aren't they?Second, false positives.
Excellent, tell people their computer won't work right because some company across the country screwed up.Third, privacy concerns.
Goodbye to them, as now Microsoft will know you use their software, and who's to say they can't execute some of the other aspects of their EULA and simply copy things from your computer.All of this is WONDERFUL to those of us in the FOSS movement.
To any who are ready to switch to a real operating system, where your computer, your privacy and what you do with it are totally your own, I'm here to help you install Linux :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108640</id>
	<title>Shouldn't this be illegal somehow?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265900820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rationale that Microsoft uses in downgrading people's systems (or banning them from Xbox Live) is that they have "detected" piracy. However, who are they to make that assertion? They are basically accusing people of a crime, and then acting as the JUDGE AND JURY. If Microsoft really wants to shut users down for an alleged crime, should they not first be required to submit to due process, present evidence in a court of law, and obtain a conviction against the accused and a court order prescribing this remedy?</p><p>Otherwise it sounds like Microsoft, a private corporation, is acting with powers that are the domain of the state. IANAL but this must be illegal somehow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rationale that Microsoft uses in downgrading people 's systems ( or banning them from Xbox Live ) is that they have " detected " piracy .
However , who are they to make that assertion ?
They are basically accusing people of a crime , and then acting as the JUDGE AND JURY .
If Microsoft really wants to shut users down for an alleged crime , should they not first be required to submit to due process , present evidence in a court of law , and obtain a conviction against the accused and a court order prescribing this remedy ? Otherwise it sounds like Microsoft , a private corporation , is acting with powers that are the domain of the state .
IANAL but this must be illegal somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rationale that Microsoft uses in downgrading people's systems (or banning them from Xbox Live) is that they have "detected" piracy.
However, who are they to make that assertion?
They are basically accusing people of a crime, and then acting as the JUDGE AND JURY.
If Microsoft really wants to shut users down for an alleged crime, should they not first be required to submit to due process, present evidence in a court of law, and obtain a conviction against the accused and a court order prescribing this remedy?Otherwise it sounds like Microsoft, a private corporation, is acting with powers that are the domain of the state.
IANAL but this must be illegal somehow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31126816</id>
	<title>Re:Cmon people...</title>
	<author>klui</author>
	<datestamp>1266075540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're the first who seem to don't mind running your car's VIN every 90 days to ensure it stays legit. You're also probably an advocate for more less privacy cuz if you're not breaking the law, you don't have anything to worry about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're the first who seem to do n't mind running your car 's VIN every 90 days to ensure it stays legit .
You 're also probably an advocate for more less privacy cuz if you 're not breaking the law , you do n't have anything to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're the first who seem to don't mind running your car's VIN every 90 days to ensure it stays legit.
You're also probably an advocate for more less privacy cuz if you're not breaking the law, you don't have anything to worry about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31211070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31112486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31111852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31126816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31138874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1735210_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31138874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102352
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31211070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31109546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103568
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31107018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31126816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31112486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31105540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31104160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31111852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31110296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31108856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31106946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31101990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1735210.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31102006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1735210.31103572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
