<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_25_1310259</id>
	<title>Microsoft Secretly Beheads Notorious Waledac Botnet</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1267105200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Microsoft has quietly won <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/355852/microsoft-secretly-beheads-notorious-botnet">court approval to deactivate 277 domain names that are being used to control a vast network of infected PCs</a>. The notorious Waledac botnet is being used by Eastern European spammers to send 1.5 billion spam messages every day, and infect hundreds of thousands of machines with malware. In a suit filed in the US District Court of Eastern Virginia, Microsoft accused 27 unnamed defendants of violating federal computer crime laws. It further requested that domain registrar Verisign temporarily deactivate the domains, shutting down the control servers being used to send commands to the machines. The request was secretly approved by District Judge Leonie Brinkema, allowing the action to be taken covertly, preventing Waledac's operators from switching domains."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Microsoft has quietly won court approval to deactivate 277 domain names that are being used to control a vast network of infected PCs .
The notorious Waledac botnet is being used by Eastern European spammers to send 1.5 billion spam messages every day , and infect hundreds of thousands of machines with malware .
In a suit filed in the US District Court of Eastern Virginia , Microsoft accused 27 unnamed defendants of violating federal computer crime laws .
It further requested that domain registrar Verisign temporarily deactivate the domains , shutting down the control servers being used to send commands to the machines .
The request was secretly approved by District Judge Leonie Brinkema , allowing the action to be taken covertly , preventing Waledac 's operators from switching domains .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Microsoft has quietly won court approval to deactivate 277 domain names that are being used to control a vast network of infected PCs.
The notorious Waledac botnet is being used by Eastern European spammers to send 1.5 billion spam messages every day, and infect hundreds of thousands of machines with malware.
In a suit filed in the US District Court of Eastern Virginia, Microsoft accused 27 unnamed defendants of violating federal computer crime laws.
It further requested that domain registrar Verisign temporarily deactivate the domains, shutting down the control servers being used to send commands to the machines.
The request was secretly approved by District Judge Leonie Brinkema, allowing the action to be taken covertly, preventing Waledac's operators from switching domains.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272830</id>
	<title>Re:Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>NatasRevol</author>
	<datestamp>1267117500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MSFT already is going after people who they claims to be violating copyright.</p><p><a href="http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/" title="siteprotect.net">http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/</a> [siteprotect.net]</p><p><a href="http://wikileaks.org/" title="wikileaks.org">http://wikileaks.org/</a> [wikileaks.org]</p><p><a href="http://file.wikileaks.org/files/microsoft-spy.pdf" title="wikileaks.org">http://file.wikileaks.org/files/microsoft-spy.pdf</a> [wikileaks.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MSFT already is going after people who they claims to be violating copyright.http : //cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/ [ siteprotect.net ] http : //wikileaks.org/ [ wikileaks.org ] http : //file.wikileaks.org/files/microsoft-spy.pdf [ wikileaks.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MSFT already is going after people who they claims to be violating copyright.http://cryptomeorg.siteprotect.net/ [siteprotect.net]http://wikileaks.org/ [wikileaks.org]http://file.wikileaks.org/files/microsoft-spy.pdf [wikileaks.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272282</id>
	<title>Re:MS is already doing that.</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1267114620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you really understand the extend of the updates send by MS? I do read them, but i understand enough of them to understand i cannot guess the exact extend of the updates.</p><p>Yes, you have to approve, but even then, what are your options? Once you are in the update treadmill you will have to keep walking. You can skip a update, but in that case you get the update anyway the next time a servicepack/rollup is offered, Or get a odd application that starts crashing.</p><p>Is don't say this is bad, but one bad patch can seriously affect a LOT OF the hardware that is out there. skype once even had trouble with it p2p network because of the large number of PC that rebooted in the update treadmill.</p><p>The TOS are non-negotiable. Only if you take the most expensive version (data-center) they might be willing to talk about the condition you license the software under. Is that a valid contract? Ah... this is really non relevant... just click OK to continue, you are trained to do that anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you really understand the extend of the updates send by MS ?
I do read them , but i understand enough of them to understand i can not guess the exact extend of the updates.Yes , you have to approve , but even then , what are your options ?
Once you are in the update treadmill you will have to keep walking .
You can skip a update , but in that case you get the update anyway the next time a servicepack/rollup is offered , Or get a odd application that starts crashing.Is do n't say this is bad , but one bad patch can seriously affect a LOT OF the hardware that is out there .
skype once even had trouble with it p2p network because of the large number of PC that rebooted in the update treadmill.The TOS are non-negotiable .
Only if you take the most expensive version ( data-center ) they might be willing to talk about the condition you license the software under .
Is that a valid contract ?
Ah... this is really non relevant... just click OK to continue , you are trained to do that anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you really understand the extend of the updates send by MS?
I do read them, but i understand enough of them to understand i cannot guess the exact extend of the updates.Yes, you have to approve, but even then, what are your options?
Once you are in the update treadmill you will have to keep walking.
You can skip a update, but in that case you get the update anyway the next time a servicepack/rollup is offered, Or get a odd application that starts crashing.Is don't say this is bad, but one bad patch can seriously affect a LOT OF the hardware that is out there.
skype once even had trouble with it p2p network because of the large number of PC that rebooted in the update treadmill.The TOS are non-negotiable.
Only if you take the most expensive version (data-center) they might be willing to talk about the condition you license the software under.
Is that a valid contract?
Ah... this is really non relevant... just click OK to continue, you are trained to do that anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271940</id>
	<title>The method won't scale, it is trivial to dodge...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267112580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Filling court orders to block "control" domains (whatever you call them won't work).</p><p>Next bot shall include, say, 5000 SHA-256 cryptographic hash of domains that haven't been registered yet and that are impossible to guess and very unlikely to be registered by anyone except the bot owner (impossible to guess unless you can break SHA-256, in which case the world at large is in trouble).</p><p>Then if the bot cannot contact the last domain(s) he got orders from for more than 'x' hours/days/whatever the bot will enter into a "find new domains mode".</p><p>The bot owner shall publish new domains on a resource that MS cannot shut down.  Like Usenet or making sure that Google shall crawl the new domain dome, or Twitter, or Reddit.  Whatever.  Even in a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comment.</p><p>The bot shall parse "source that cannot be shutdown" and find all the domain names.  He'll take the SHA-256 of them.  The ones that matches of his 5000 hashes shall become new "control" domain.</p><p>This is now how MS should fix its mess. MS should fix its mess by making a security a priority but sadly it's too busy refining its endless upgrade/milking scheme (scheme into which machine getting owned is serving MS a great purpose so...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filling court orders to block " control " domains ( whatever you call them wo n't work ) .Next bot shall include , say , 5000 SHA-256 cryptographic hash of domains that have n't been registered yet and that are impossible to guess and very unlikely to be registered by anyone except the bot owner ( impossible to guess unless you can break SHA-256 , in which case the world at large is in trouble ) .Then if the bot can not contact the last domain ( s ) he got orders from for more than 'x ' hours/days/whatever the bot will enter into a " find new domains mode " .The bot owner shall publish new domains on a resource that MS can not shut down .
Like Usenet or making sure that Google shall crawl the new domain dome , or Twitter , or Reddit .
Whatever. Even in a / .
comment.The bot shall parse " source that can not be shutdown " and find all the domain names .
He 'll take the SHA-256 of them .
The ones that matches of his 5000 hashes shall become new " control " domain.This is now how MS should fix its mess .
MS should fix its mess by making a security a priority but sadly it 's too busy refining its endless upgrade/milking scheme ( scheme into which machine getting owned is serving MS a great purpose so... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filling court orders to block "control" domains (whatever you call them won't work).Next bot shall include, say, 5000 SHA-256 cryptographic hash of domains that haven't been registered yet and that are impossible to guess and very unlikely to be registered by anyone except the bot owner (impossible to guess unless you can break SHA-256, in which case the world at large is in trouble).Then if the bot cannot contact the last domain(s) he got orders from for more than 'x' hours/days/whatever the bot will enter into a "find new domains mode".The bot owner shall publish new domains on a resource that MS cannot shut down.
Like Usenet or making sure that Google shall crawl the new domain dome, or Twitter, or Reddit.
Whatever.  Even in a /.
comment.The bot shall parse "source that cannot be shutdown" and find all the domain names.
He'll take the SHA-256 of them.
The ones that matches of his 5000 hashes shall become new "control" domain.This is now how MS should fix its mess.
MS should fix its mess by making a security a priority but sadly it's too busy refining its endless upgrade/milking scheme (scheme into which machine getting owned is serving MS a great purpose so...).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31286896</id>
	<title>Funny though....</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1267207380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know it is funny that they should have to ask to be able to shut them down as they own the software that most is run on, and could somehow figure out how to shut them down through their loopholes the way they do people with legit copies of windows, and have to prove they have legit copies of windows, I also find it funny that they contacted verisign about this, seeing as they have the mass of dns servers online and could have sent out an easy fix in the actual firmware of their product to do more filtering of these sites then worry about getting verisign in on something they could have at some point said no to....but in the end, I enjoy the fact that they still did a good deed. Way to go M$, taking a step in the right direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know it is funny that they should have to ask to be able to shut them down as they own the software that most is run on , and could somehow figure out how to shut them down through their loopholes the way they do people with legit copies of windows , and have to prove they have legit copies of windows , I also find it funny that they contacted verisign about this , seeing as they have the mass of dns servers online and could have sent out an easy fix in the actual firmware of their product to do more filtering of these sites then worry about getting verisign in on something they could have at some point said no to....but in the end , I enjoy the fact that they still did a good deed .
Way to go M $ , taking a step in the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know it is funny that they should have to ask to be able to shut them down as they own the software that most is run on, and could somehow figure out how to shut them down through their loopholes the way they do people with legit copies of windows, and have to prove they have legit copies of windows, I also find it funny that they contacted verisign about this, seeing as they have the mass of dns servers online and could have sent out an easy fix in the actual firmware of their product to do more filtering of these sites then worry about getting verisign in on something they could have at some point said no to....but in the end, I enjoy the fact that they still did a good deed.
Way to go M$, taking a step in the right direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274996</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>The Wild Norseman</author>
	<datestamp>1267125120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(cue Batman music).</p></div><p>
Don't you mean <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/24/2315204/Triumph-of-the-Cyborg-Composer" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Botman music?</a> [slashdot.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( cue Batman music ) .
Do n't you mean Botman music ?
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(cue Batman music).
Don't you mean Botman music?
[slashdot.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276162</id>
	<title>Re:One step toward active botnet fighting?</title>
	<author>Jeffrey\_Walsh VA</author>
	<datestamp>1267129500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...some sort of message that warns the user to seek help</i> <br> <br>
Who says there is a "user" out there who wanted help? The hosting provider was probably getting a lot of money to ignore all the requests to stop it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...some sort of message that warns the user to seek help Who says there is a " user " out there who wanted help ?
The hosting provider was probably getting a lot of money to ignore all the requests to stop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...some sort of message that warns the user to seek help  
Who says there is a "user" out there who wanted help?
The hosting provider was probably getting a lot of money to ignore all the requests to stop it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272006</id>
	<title>ftc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267112940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as usual microsoft doesn't like competition. mabey the botnet writers should file a complaint with the FTC that people should have their choice amongst botnets instead of having to use microsoft's default one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as usual microsoft does n't like competition .
mabey the botnet writers should file a complaint with the FTC that people should have their choice amongst botnets instead of having to use microsoft 's default one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as usual microsoft doesn't like competition.
mabey the botnet writers should file a complaint with the FTC that people should have their choice amongst botnets instead of having to use microsoft's default one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271414</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1267109460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution, might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands? Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Hardcoded IP address allows to trace bot master. Fallback to master's address is not logical. It is dangerous and unsafe. Logical thing would be to start new botnet when original botnet is targeted by authorities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution , might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands ?
Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network.. . Hardcoded IP address allows to trace bot master .
Fallback to master 's address is not logical .
It is dangerous and unsafe .
Logical thing would be to start new botnet when original botnet is targeted by authorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution, might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands?
Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network...

Hardcoded IP address allows to trace bot master.
Fallback to master's address is not logical.
It is dangerous and unsafe.
Logical thing would be to start new botnet when original botnet is targeted by authorities.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272096</id>
	<title>Easier method</title>
	<author>aapold</author>
	<datestamp>1267113420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Going by the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/features/2010/02-24Botnet\_lg.jpg" title="microsoft.com">microsoft graphic of the operation</a> [microsoft.com], they could just arrest people who wear dark sunglasses and colored head scarves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Going by the microsoft graphic of the operation [ microsoft.com ] , they could just arrest people who wear dark sunglasses and colored head scarves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Going by the microsoft graphic of the operation [microsoft.com], they could just arrest people who wear dark sunglasses and colored head scarves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272456</id>
	<title>Secret?</title>
	<author>kjart</author>
	<datestamp>1267115640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a secret lawsuit filed in a secret court that resulted in a secret action being taken, everyone sure seems to know a lot about what happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a secret lawsuit filed in a secret court that resulted in a secret action being taken , everyone sure seems to know a lot about what happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a secret lawsuit filed in a secret court that resulted in a secret action being taken, everyone sure seems to know a lot about what happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271788</id>
	<title>Standing</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1267111620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As glad as I am when botnets are crippled or shut down, I can't help but ask: Why is Microsoft the one pursuing this in court, rather than the government? Under what legal principle does Microsoft, a private corporation, have standing to sue for control of these domain names?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As glad as I am when botnets are crippled or shut down , I ca n't help but ask : Why is Microsoft the one pursuing this in court , rather than the government ?
Under what legal principle does Microsoft , a private corporation , have standing to sue for control of these domain names ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As glad as I am when botnets are crippled or shut down, I can't help but ask: Why is Microsoft the one pursuing this in court, rather than the government?
Under what legal principle does Microsoft, a private corporation, have standing to sue for control of these domain names?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274344</id>
	<title>Re:I must have missed the memo</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1267123020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not really vigilantism if they chose the legal route, go to court and get a judge to approve their case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really vigilantism if they chose the legal route , go to court and get a judge to approve their case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really vigilantism if they chose the legal route, go to court and get a judge to approve their case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274290</id>
	<title>Re:One step toward active botnet fighting?</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1267122780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not vigilantism if a court orders you to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not vigilantism if a court orders you to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not vigilantism if a court orders you to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276700</id>
	<title>Offspring coming shortly</title>
	<author>M3.14</author>
	<datestamp>1267088400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure someone will find a way how to get the control back or salvage large number of zombie-PCs even without those domains. It happened before: <a href="https://infosecurity.us/?p=6262" title="infosecurity.us" rel="nofollow">https://infosecurity.us/?p=6262</a> [infosecurity.us]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure someone will find a way how to get the control back or salvage large number of zombie-PCs even without those domains .
It happened before : https : //infosecurity.us/ ? p = 6262 [ infosecurity.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure someone will find a way how to get the control back or salvage large number of zombie-PCs even without those domains.
It happened before: https://infosecurity.us/?p=6262 [infosecurity.us]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271900</id>
	<title>Has anyone else noticed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267112280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that "secret" and "covert" might not be the right choice of words since Microsoft blogged about the whole thing?</p><p>In the words of Inigo Montoya:  "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that " secret " and " covert " might not be the right choice of words since Microsoft blogged about the whole thing ? In the words of Inigo Montoya : " You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that "secret" and "covert" might not be the right choice of words since Microsoft blogged about the whole thing?In the words of Inigo Montoya:  "You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272184</id>
	<title>Re:Standing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267114080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up.<br>
I don't like where this is going -- at all. Too many times Microsoft has done something supposedly in the spirit of friendship, then turned around and stabbed someone in the back. So I question their motives even when it appears they are doing something "right".<br> <br>A precedent is being set here, where a private company obtains an order to shut down a large number of sites, without warning and without proof of guilt. Yes, I think the botnet people are bad. But by destroying the *process* and doing things on the sly, you destroy the credibility of the action. Shutting down hundreds of sites based on little more than an accusation -- and without due notice -- seems to be a very large hammer for any 3rd party to wield.<br> <br>Today it's a botnet. Tomorrow maybe it's your site, that just happened to host an anti-Microsoft comment. Whoops. Maybe you were "accidentally" included with their next scheduled monthly site shutdown. So sorry about that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
I do n't like where this is going -- at all .
Too many times Microsoft has done something supposedly in the spirit of friendship , then turned around and stabbed someone in the back .
So I question their motives even when it appears they are doing something " right " .
A precedent is being set here , where a private company obtains an order to shut down a large number of sites , without warning and without proof of guilt .
Yes , I think the botnet people are bad .
But by destroying the * process * and doing things on the sly , you destroy the credibility of the action .
Shutting down hundreds of sites based on little more than an accusation -- and without due notice -- seems to be a very large hammer for any 3rd party to wield .
Today it 's a botnet .
Tomorrow maybe it 's your site , that just happened to host an anti-Microsoft comment .
Whoops. Maybe you were " accidentally " included with their next scheduled monthly site shutdown .
So sorry about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
I don't like where this is going -- at all.
Too many times Microsoft has done something supposedly in the spirit of friendship, then turned around and stabbed someone in the back.
So I question their motives even when it appears they are doing something "right".
A precedent is being set here, where a private company obtains an order to shut down a large number of sites, without warning and without proof of guilt.
Yes, I think the botnet people are bad.
But by destroying the *process* and doing things on the sly, you destroy the credibility of the action.
Shutting down hundreds of sites based on little more than an accusation -- and without due notice -- seems to be a very large hammer for any 3rd party to wield.
Today it's a botnet.
Tomorrow maybe it's your site, that just happened to host an anti-Microsoft comment.
Whoops. Maybe you were "accidentally" included with their next scheduled monthly site shutdown.
So sorry about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271634</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1267110660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to wonder at the accuracy of that assumption.  I think that drug dealing is a lot like acting - people see all the famous actors and say "I can get rich as an actor", but don't notice that it is only the top one percent or so that truly make it - the rest struggle to get by, or make a moderate living at best.  Additionally, as a drug dealer, you also have to avoid the law - being wildly successful for 5 years then getting caught and put in jail for ten to twenty makes flipping burgers more profitable an endeavor over the long term.  Not to mention the rather short life expectancy of many of the most successful due to "competition".</p><p>So, short term, yeah, dealing (or many types of crime) is easier than making money legally.  But long term, you either have to be really good, and thus invest much effort in staying one step ahead of both the law and those looking to "replace" you, or you lose the advantage that crime had, and then some.  And if you are investing the required effort successfully, you likely could have done equally well working legitimately.  Sure, there are the Dons and Columbian drug lords that are the exception, but again - only the top 1\% or less enjoy that privilege.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to wonder at the accuracy of that assumption .
I think that drug dealing is a lot like acting - people see all the famous actors and say " I can get rich as an actor " , but do n't notice that it is only the top one percent or so that truly make it - the rest struggle to get by , or make a moderate living at best .
Additionally , as a drug dealer , you also have to avoid the law - being wildly successful for 5 years then getting caught and put in jail for ten to twenty makes flipping burgers more profitable an endeavor over the long term .
Not to mention the rather short life expectancy of many of the most successful due to " competition " .So , short term , yeah , dealing ( or many types of crime ) is easier than making money legally .
But long term , you either have to be really good , and thus invest much effort in staying one step ahead of both the law and those looking to " replace " you , or you lose the advantage that crime had , and then some .
And if you are investing the required effort successfully , you likely could have done equally well working legitimately .
Sure , there are the Dons and Columbian drug lords that are the exception , but again - only the top 1 \ % or less enjoy that privilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to wonder at the accuracy of that assumption.
I think that drug dealing is a lot like acting - people see all the famous actors and say "I can get rich as an actor", but don't notice that it is only the top one percent or so that truly make it - the rest struggle to get by, or make a moderate living at best.
Additionally, as a drug dealer, you also have to avoid the law - being wildly successful for 5 years then getting caught and put in jail for ten to twenty makes flipping burgers more profitable an endeavor over the long term.
Not to mention the rather short life expectancy of many of the most successful due to "competition".So, short term, yeah, dealing (or many types of crime) is easier than making money legally.
But long term, you either have to be really good, and thus invest much effort in staying one step ahead of both the law and those looking to "replace" you, or you lose the advantage that crime had, and then some.
And if you are investing the required effort successfully, you likely could have done equally well working legitimately.
Sure, there are the Dons and Columbian drug lords that are the exception, but again - only the top 1\% or less enjoy that privilege.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276246</id>
	<title>Why Unnamed?</title>
	<author>sproketboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267129800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why unnamed? Why the secrecy?   Bring the cockroaches out into the light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why unnamed ?
Why the secrecy ?
Bring the cockroaches out into the light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why unnamed?
Why the secrecy?
Bring the cockroaches out into the light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31280496</id>
	<title>Re:I must have missed the memo</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267108440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Is today the day we like Microsoft?<br><br>Can we be glad they did a certain thing, without liking them in general?<br><br>I mean, I'm also extremely glad they released IE8, because it's a lot easier to support than earlier versions.  That doesn't mean I don't hate them with every fiber of my being for making IE6 in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Is today the day we like Microsoft ? Can we be glad they did a certain thing , without liking them in general ? I mean , I 'm also extremely glad they released IE8 , because it 's a lot easier to support than earlier versions .
That does n't mean I do n't hate them with every fiber of my being for making IE6 in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Is today the day we like Microsoft?Can we be glad they did a certain thing, without liking them in general?I mean, I'm also extremely glad they released IE8, because it's a lot easier to support than earlier versions.
That doesn't mean I don't hate them with every fiber of my being for making IE6 in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272448</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1267115580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there was no big initial payoff to dealing drugs, people wouldn't start. When you can spend maybe an hour delivering your goods a day and make a couple hundred dollars for your efforts (minimum), there is incentive.</p><p>I know of a guy who made $800 in one day - his first - selling pot. I know of another guy who (while still in high school) made enough to buy a $60k vehicle outright.</p><p>There is no doubt in my mind that the casual drug dealer can make significantly more than minimum wage while doing negligible work each day. If you've got no base competency and know people who use, it's a no-brainer: your first-person acquaintances alone can stock your fridge and pay your rent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there was no big initial payoff to dealing drugs , people would n't start .
When you can spend maybe an hour delivering your goods a day and make a couple hundred dollars for your efforts ( minimum ) , there is incentive.I know of a guy who made $ 800 in one day - his first - selling pot .
I know of another guy who ( while still in high school ) made enough to buy a $ 60k vehicle outright.There is no doubt in my mind that the casual drug dealer can make significantly more than minimum wage while doing negligible work each day .
If you 've got no base competency and know people who use , it 's a no-brainer : your first-person acquaintances alone can stock your fridge and pay your rent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there was no big initial payoff to dealing drugs, people wouldn't start.
When you can spend maybe an hour delivering your goods a day and make a couple hundred dollars for your efforts (minimum), there is incentive.I know of a guy who made $800 in one day - his first - selling pot.
I know of another guy who (while still in high school) made enough to buy a $60k vehicle outright.There is no doubt in my mind that the casual drug dealer can make significantly more than minimum wage while doing negligible work each day.
If you've got no base competency and know people who use, it's a no-brainer: your first-person acquaintances alone can stock your fridge and pay your rent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271738</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. If they were smart it's easier to make money legally than illegally.</p></div><p>You must have been home schooled and/or grown up with the Amish.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
If they were smart it 's easier to make money legally than illegally.You must have been home schooled and/or grown up with the Amish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
If they were smart it's easier to make money legally than illegally.You must have been home schooled and/or grown up with the Amish.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346</id>
	<title>Contingencies</title>
	<author>flink</author>
	<datestamp>1267109160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution, might not the botnet be configured  to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands?  Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution , might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands ?
Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution, might not the botnet be configured  to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands?
Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271582</id>
	<title>drones</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1267110540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1,5 billions of spam messages per day. Multiply each message by 10 seconds of working time it takes to activate e-mail window and delete the spam-message, and it becomes clear what damage to the word economy it brings. Let alone disrupted work-flow.</p><p>It is the weapon of mass economic destruction.</p><p>Such spammers should be warned, once, twice, and if they do not cool down a drone should come above their building and shoot a "Hellfire" missile right into the server room.</p><p>Or at least black-clad agents should enter the server room and sprinkle some special solution into the spam-servers, which becomes conductive after some time and shortcut.</p><p>This I would call a mild government response.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1,5 billions of spam messages per day .
Multiply each message by 10 seconds of working time it takes to activate e-mail window and delete the spam-message , and it becomes clear what damage to the word economy it brings .
Let alone disrupted work-flow.It is the weapon of mass economic destruction.Such spammers should be warned , once , twice , and if they do not cool down a drone should come above their building and shoot a " Hellfire " missile right into the server room.Or at least black-clad agents should enter the server room and sprinkle some special solution into the spam-servers , which becomes conductive after some time and shortcut.This I would call a mild government response .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1,5 billions of spam messages per day.
Multiply each message by 10 seconds of working time it takes to activate e-mail window and delete the spam-message, and it becomes clear what damage to the word economy it brings.
Let alone disrupted work-flow.It is the weapon of mass economic destruction.Such spammers should be warned, once, twice, and if they do not cool down a drone should come above their building and shoot a "Hellfire" missile right into the server room.Or at least black-clad agents should enter the server room and sprinkle some special solution into the spam-servers, which becomes conductive after some time and shortcut.This I would call a mild government response.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271462</id>
	<title>Re:One step toward active botnet fighting?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is nice (if reactionary) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting' the target computers with a patch, or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help?</p><p>Would Microsoft ever go that far?  Would that be admitting that the only solution to the holes in Windows is vigilantism?</p></div><p>It has already been done, all be it without any permission. At least here in the UK by the BBC when they paid cybercrims to obatin access to a botnet for reporting purposes.</p><p>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/12/bbc\_botnet\_probe/<br>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/bbc\_botnet\_bought/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nice ( if reactionary ) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting ' the target computers with a patch , or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help ? Would Microsoft ever go that far ?
Would that be admitting that the only solution to the holes in Windows is vigilantism ? It has already been done , all be it without any permission .
At least here in the UK by the BBC when they paid cybercrims to obatin access to a botnet for reporting purposes.http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/12/bbc \ _botnet \ _probe/http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/bbc \ _botnet \ _bought/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nice (if reactionary) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting' the target computers with a patch, or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help?Would Microsoft ever go that far?
Would that be admitting that the only solution to the holes in Windows is vigilantism?It has already been done, all be it without any permission.
At least here in the UK by the BBC when they paid cybercrims to obatin access to a botnet for reporting purposes.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/12/bbc\_botnet\_probe/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/16/bbc\_botnet\_bought/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271922</id>
	<title>Cyber war initiated by DOJ</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1267112460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least that is what the headline could be. Disabling foreign internet service is a big deal.</p><p>Could be a serves them right for registering as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com rather than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.country. But this is one branch of the US government disabling some foreign infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least that is what the headline could be .
Disabling foreign internet service is a big deal.Could be a serves them right for registering as .com rather than .country .
But this is one branch of the US government disabling some foreign infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least that is what the headline could be.
Disabling foreign internet service is a big deal.Could be a serves them right for registering as .com rather than .country.
But this is one branch of the US government disabling some foreign infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271630</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Jahava</author>
	<datestamp>1267110660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution, might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands? Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network...</p></div><p>Well, here are a few thoughts:
</p><ul>
<li>Microsoft probably thoroughly reverse-engineered the botnet client code prior to seeking the court's assistance. Therefore, they have a very good understanding of the botnet's control algorithms. They probably derived those domain names and took those specific measures in response to their understanding of those algorithms.</li><li>For a botnet, hard-coding IP addresses could be riskier than DNS names. If someone is trying to shut you down, it's easier on their part to pick a specific set of IP addresses and (with cooperation of their respective ISPs) get them shut down or (without said cooperation) firewalled.</li><li>For a botnet, it's much faster and easier to change your IP address and update a DNS entry, leaving the botnet code alone. If you have to change those hard-coded addresses, you have to not only rebuild and push new code, but update every infected system (and any network admin on a <em>legit</em> controlled network knows that there can be issues with this). With the DNS entry they have a central point to update.</li><li>I'd not be surprised if Microsoft chose this specific botnet <em>because</em> it had a vulnerability that was within the reach of a court to address</li></ul><p>
As others have pointed out, this teaches every other botnet author a lesson on what can be done. The problem ain't solved by a longshot, but maybe the Internet is safe for another night (cue Batman music).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution , might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands ?
Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network...Well , here are a few thoughts : Microsoft probably thoroughly reverse-engineered the botnet client code prior to seeking the court 's assistance .
Therefore , they have a very good understanding of the botnet 's control algorithms .
They probably derived those domain names and took those specific measures in response to their understanding of those algorithms.For a botnet , hard-coding IP addresses could be riskier than DNS names .
If someone is trying to shut you down , it 's easier on their part to pick a specific set of IP addresses and ( with cooperation of their respective ISPs ) get them shut down or ( without said cooperation ) firewalled.For a botnet , it 's much faster and easier to change your IP address and update a DNS entry , leaving the botnet code alone .
If you have to change those hard-coded addresses , you have to not only rebuild and push new code , but update every infected system ( and any network admin on a legit controlled network knows that there can be issues with this ) .
With the DNS entry they have a central point to update.I 'd not be surprised if Microsoft chose this specific botnet because it had a vulnerability that was within the reach of a court to address As others have pointed out , this teaches every other botnet author a lesson on what can be done .
The problem ai n't solved by a longshot , but maybe the Internet is safe for another night ( cue Batman music ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution, might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands?
Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network...Well, here are a few thoughts:

Microsoft probably thoroughly reverse-engineered the botnet client code prior to seeking the court's assistance.
Therefore, they have a very good understanding of the botnet's control algorithms.
They probably derived those domain names and took those specific measures in response to their understanding of those algorithms.For a botnet, hard-coding IP addresses could be riskier than DNS names.
If someone is trying to shut you down, it's easier on their part to pick a specific set of IP addresses and (with cooperation of their respective ISPs) get them shut down or (without said cooperation) firewalled.For a botnet, it's much faster and easier to change your IP address and update a DNS entry, leaving the botnet code alone.
If you have to change those hard-coded addresses, you have to not only rebuild and push new code, but update every infected system (and any network admin on a legit controlled network knows that there can be issues with this).
With the DNS entry they have a central point to update.I'd not be surprised if Microsoft chose this specific botnet because it had a vulnerability that was within the reach of a court to address
As others have pointed out, this teaches every other botnet author a lesson on what can be done.
The problem ain't solved by a longshot, but maybe the Internet is safe for another night (cue Batman music).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272070</id>
	<title>Re:I must have missed the memo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today is not the day we like Microsoft because we all know the monocrop argument is a huge fallacy that only the lesser minds fall for.</p><p>"Are all OSes equals in face of security?"  No.    Take OpenBSD vs OS X and tell me that they offer the same level of security and I'll take you for a fool.  There goes your monocrop argument.</p><p>So today is not the day we like Microsoft because we all know that Windows has a more than very mediocre security record track: there's a reason while, say, the entire banking industry or some countries' entire medical care systems have been switched to Un*x + Java (Java being immune to buffer overrun/overflow).</p><p>Microsoft is the very culprit of these massive botnets in the very first place.</p><p>You'd be a god amongst the lowlifes if instead of fighting for x\% of the Windows zombies you were having, say, 20\% of all the Mac OS X out there or x\% of all the Linux servers out there.  Yet nobody does.</p><p>It's only MickeySoft Winblows that get pwned.</p><p>And your monocrop fallacy doesn't hold water so, no, today is not the day we like Microsoft.</p><p>We don't care much that said: one Linux workstation + one MacMini + one MacBook Pro here and emails done trough GMail, where I hardly remember what spam is...</p><p>Have fun in your MickeySoft world and don't forget to be a believer: "Windows 8 shall really be secure this time and will never be part of a botnet".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today is not the day we like Microsoft because we all know the monocrop argument is a huge fallacy that only the lesser minds fall for .
" Are all OSes equals in face of security ?
" No .
Take OpenBSD vs OS X and tell me that they offer the same level of security and I 'll take you for a fool .
There goes your monocrop argument.So today is not the day we like Microsoft because we all know that Windows has a more than very mediocre security record track : there 's a reason while , say , the entire banking industry or some countries ' entire medical care systems have been switched to Un * x + Java ( Java being immune to buffer overrun/overflow ) .Microsoft is the very culprit of these massive botnets in the very first place.You 'd be a god amongst the lowlifes if instead of fighting for x \ % of the Windows zombies you were having , say , 20 \ % of all the Mac OS X out there or x \ % of all the Linux servers out there .
Yet nobody does.It 's only MickeySoft Winblows that get pwned.And your monocrop fallacy does n't hold water so , no , today is not the day we like Microsoft.We do n't care much that said : one Linux workstation + one MacMini + one MacBook Pro here and emails done trough GMail , where I hardly remember what spam is...Have fun in your MickeySoft world and do n't forget to be a believer : " Windows 8 shall really be secure this time and will never be part of a botnet " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today is not the day we like Microsoft because we all know the monocrop argument is a huge fallacy that only the lesser minds fall for.
"Are all OSes equals in face of security?
"  No.
Take OpenBSD vs OS X and tell me that they offer the same level of security and I'll take you for a fool.
There goes your monocrop argument.So today is not the day we like Microsoft because we all know that Windows has a more than very mediocre security record track: there's a reason while, say, the entire banking industry or some countries' entire medical care systems have been switched to Un*x + Java (Java being immune to buffer overrun/overflow).Microsoft is the very culprit of these massive botnets in the very first place.You'd be a god amongst the lowlifes if instead of fighting for x\% of the Windows zombies you were having, say, 20\% of all the Mac OS X out there or x\% of all the Linux servers out there.
Yet nobody does.It's only MickeySoft Winblows that get pwned.And your monocrop fallacy doesn't hold water so, no, today is not the day we like Microsoft.We don't care much that said: one Linux workstation + one MacMini + one MacBook Pro here and emails done trough GMail, where I hardly remember what spam is...Have fun in your MickeySoft world and don't forget to be a believer: "Windows 8 shall really be secure this time and will never be part of a botnet".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271962</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>jecblackpepper</author>
	<datestamp>1267112700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have a read of Freakonomics. That has a chapter about the economics of drug dealing. The headline question posed is something like "Why do drug dealers live at home with Mom?" The answer being that it pays so badly that the majority of dealers can't afford their own place. The conclusion was that drug dealers, in Chicago if I remember correctly, on average earn less than minimum wage and have a lower life expectancy than someone on death row.
</p><p>
One asks why do they do it then, one the main reasons apparently was that they could see that 1\% who were earning megabucks and thought that they'd be able to break into the big time too, so all the hardship now would be worth it - of course 99\% never make it big.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have a read of Freakonomics .
That has a chapter about the economics of drug dealing .
The headline question posed is something like " Why do drug dealers live at home with Mom ?
" The answer being that it pays so badly that the majority of dealers ca n't afford their own place .
The conclusion was that drug dealers , in Chicago if I remember correctly , on average earn less than minimum wage and have a lower life expectancy than someone on death row .
One asks why do they do it then , one the main reasons apparently was that they could see that 1 \ % who were earning megabucks and thought that they 'd be able to break into the big time too , so all the hardship now would be worth it - of course 99 \ % never make it big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have a read of Freakonomics.
That has a chapter about the economics of drug dealing.
The headline question posed is something like "Why do drug dealers live at home with Mom?
" The answer being that it pays so badly that the majority of dealers can't afford their own place.
The conclusion was that drug dealers, in Chicago if I remember correctly, on average earn less than minimum wage and have a lower life expectancy than someone on death row.
One asks why do they do it then, one the main reasons apparently was that they could see that 1\% who were earning megabucks and thought that they'd be able to break into the big time too, so all the hardship now would be worth it - of course 99\% never make it big.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271652</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267110780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.ted.com/talks/steven\_levitt\_analyzes\_crack\_economics.html</p><p>Steven Levitt would like to have a few words with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ted.com/talks/steven \ _levitt \ _analyzes \ _crack \ _economics.htmlSteven Levitt would like to have a few words with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ted.com/talks/steven\_levitt\_analyzes\_crack\_economics.htmlSteven Levitt would like to have a few words with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272252</id>
	<title>not atypical</title>
	<author>ericbg05</author>
	<datestamp>1267114500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals, and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them, all based on a mere accusation.</p><p>Oh, but since we're fighting spam, I guess that's okay.</p><p>Wait until Microsoft starts doing this to go after copyright violations. Will y'all be cheering then?</p></div><p>My fianc&eacute;e IAL working in a federal district court.  I have mod points, but I guess it's more illuminating to reply than mod down this ridiculous comment.</p><p>

Stuff is filed under seal in court all the time.  The idea is that you don't want the defendant you're pursuing to know you're pursuing them if there's a high chance they can cover their tracks.  You can't just make a "mere accusation" and get a court to do whatever you want.  That, of course, would be silly.</p><p>

Most judges are really quite reasonable about the decision to keep things sealed.  In any event, all the docs will become unsealed relatively quickly -- and if you think the court was *unreasonable*, that they abused their discretion somehow, you can take your complaint to the appellate court.</p><p>

Court proceedings are slow, but some crooks (especially intelligent, well-funded crooks) can move fast.  This is the balance we've found between thinking things through carefully, and satisfying the public's right to this information, while still prosecuting agile crooks.</p><p>

In copyright infringement cases, the plaintiff would probably have a hard time convincing the judge that docs need to stay sealed.</p><p>

Believe it or not, the system actually works pretty well sometimes.</p><p>

Look, I'm all for an intelligent discussion of the shortcomings of the legal system, of which there are plenty.  But you should really try to learn something about it before criticizing it.  Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals , and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them , all based on a mere accusation.Oh , but since we 're fighting spam , I guess that 's okay.Wait until Microsoft starts doing this to go after copyright violations .
Will y'all be cheering then ? My fianc   e IAL working in a federal district court .
I have mod points , but I guess it 's more illuminating to reply than mod down this ridiculous comment .
Stuff is filed under seal in court all the time .
The idea is that you do n't want the defendant you 're pursuing to know you 're pursuing them if there 's a high chance they can cover their tracks .
You ca n't just make a " mere accusation " and get a court to do whatever you want .
That , of course , would be silly .
Most judges are really quite reasonable about the decision to keep things sealed .
In any event , all the docs will become unsealed relatively quickly -- and if you think the court was * unreasonable * , that they abused their discretion somehow , you can take your complaint to the appellate court .
Court proceedings are slow , but some crooks ( especially intelligent , well-funded crooks ) can move fast .
This is the balance we 've found between thinking things through carefully , and satisfying the public 's right to this information , while still prosecuting agile crooks .
In copyright infringement cases , the plaintiff would probably have a hard time convincing the judge that docs need to stay sealed .
Believe it or not , the system actually works pretty well sometimes .
Look , I 'm all for an intelligent discussion of the shortcomings of the legal system , of which there are plenty .
But you should really try to learn something about it before criticizing it .
Otherwise you 're just wasting everyone 's time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals, and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them, all based on a mere accusation.Oh, but since we're fighting spam, I guess that's okay.Wait until Microsoft starts doing this to go after copyright violations.
Will y'all be cheering then?My fiancée IAL working in a federal district court.
I have mod points, but I guess it's more illuminating to reply than mod down this ridiculous comment.
Stuff is filed under seal in court all the time.
The idea is that you don't want the defendant you're pursuing to know you're pursuing them if there's a high chance they can cover their tracks.
You can't just make a "mere accusation" and get a court to do whatever you want.
That, of course, would be silly.
Most judges are really quite reasonable about the decision to keep things sealed.
In any event, all the docs will become unsealed relatively quickly -- and if you think the court was *unreasonable*, that they abused their discretion somehow, you can take your complaint to the appellate court.
Court proceedings are slow, but some crooks (especially intelligent, well-funded crooks) can move fast.
This is the balance we've found between thinking things through carefully, and satisfying the public's right to this information, while still prosecuting agile crooks.
In copyright infringement cases, the plaintiff would probably have a hard time convincing the judge that docs need to stay sealed.
Believe it or not, the system actually works pretty well sometimes.
Look, I'm all for an intelligent discussion of the shortcomings of the legal system, of which there are plenty.
But you should really try to learn something about it before criticizing it.
Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272444</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267115580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is microsoft. What probably happened here, is there were confined tests run in a virtualized environment intentionally infected by the virus. Then, you strip out different control servers dns entries and observe more. It's like trolling 4chan, just with computer code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is microsoft .
What probably happened here , is there were confined tests run in a virtualized environment intentionally infected by the virus .
Then , you strip out different control servers dns entries and observe more .
It 's like trolling 4chan , just with computer code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is microsoft.
What probably happened here, is there were confined tests run in a virtualized environment intentionally infected by the virus.
Then, you strip out different control servers dns entries and observe more.
It's like trolling 4chan, just with computer code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273774</id>
	<title>Re:Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1267121160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wait until Microsoft starts doing this to go after copyright violations. Will y'all be cheering then?</p></div><p>I've been waiting for them to start cracking down on warez kiddiez running pirated Windows for a loooooong time.</p><p>Those people are half the reason botnets like this spread like wildfire in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait until Microsoft starts doing this to go after copyright violations .
Will y'all be cheering then ? I 've been waiting for them to start cracking down on warez kiddiez running pirated Windows for a loooooong time.Those people are half the reason botnets like this spread like wildfire in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait until Microsoft starts doing this to go after copyright violations.
Will y'all be cheering then?I've been waiting for them to start cracking down on warez kiddiez running pirated Windows for a loooooong time.Those people are half the reason botnets like this spread like wildfire in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272032</id>
	<title>And tomorrow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>277 NEW domain names will be created, computers will get reinfected, and the real problem will still exist.  Nice that MS wants to clean up, but it doesn't mean much if the cause isn't dealt with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>277 NEW domain names will be created , computers will get reinfected , and the real problem will still exist .
Nice that MS wants to clean up , but it does n't mean much if the cause is n't dealt with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>277 NEW domain names will be created, computers will get reinfected, and the real problem will still exist.
Nice that MS wants to clean up, but it doesn't mean much if the cause isn't dealt with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271918</id>
	<title>Re:"East European"</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1267112400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is not an explanation that's really going to help people understand why linux is overall a better bet (specifically for longevity) than windows.</p><p>Try explaining things more simple:</p><p>it's more secure<br>you know what the program does (nothing hidden)<br>everything is free (and high quality)<br>if you don't know how to do something it can easily be google'd to find the answer.</p><p>etc.</p><p>explaining MS's closed repositories is not even a compelling reason for folks who are programmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is not an explanation that 's really going to help people understand why linux is overall a better bet ( specifically for longevity ) than windows.Try explaining things more simple : it 's more secureyou know what the program does ( nothing hidden ) everything is free ( and high quality ) if you do n't know how to do something it can easily be google 'd to find the answer.etc.explaining MS 's closed repositories is not even a compelling reason for folks who are programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is not an explanation that's really going to help people understand why linux is overall a better bet (specifically for longevity) than windows.Try explaining things more simple:it's more secureyou know what the program does (nothing hidden)everything is free (and high quality)if you don't know how to do something it can easily be google'd to find the answer.etc.explaining MS's closed repositories is not even a compelling reason for folks who are programmers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271480</id>
	<title>Reactionary?</title>
	<author>aussersterne</author>
	<datestamp>1267109820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not think that word means what you think it means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not think that word means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not think that word means what you think it means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272022</id>
	<title>Re:Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be honest I trust Microsoft more than the police with this shit. They do run hotmail and spam affects them too, afterall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest I trust Microsoft more than the police with this shit .
They do run hotmail and spam affects them too , afterall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest I trust Microsoft more than the police with this shit.
They do run hotmail and spam affects them too, afterall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271330</id>
	<title>Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267108980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cue comments about how this is somehow evil...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue comments about how this is somehow evil.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue comments about how this is somehow evil...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31279980</id>
	<title>hotmail</title>
	<author>spiracle</author>
	<datestamp>1267104180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only reason Microsoft cares about this botnet because it "was responsible for sending 651 million spam e-mails to Hotmail addresses over an 18-day period last month".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason Microsoft cares about this botnet because it " was responsible for sending 651 million spam e-mails to Hotmail addresses over an 18-day period last month " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason Microsoft cares about this botnet because it "was responsible for sending 651 million spam e-mails to Hotmail addresses over an 18-day period last month".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272120</id>
	<title>How secret or quiet can it be</title>
	<author>aapold</author>
	<datestamp>1267113600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The headline notes:   " allowing the action to be taken covertly, preventing Waledac's operators from switching domains".
<br> <br>
So now its on slashdot.     Gee, thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The headline notes : " allowing the action to be taken covertly , preventing Waledac 's operators from switching domains " .
So now its on slashdot .
Gee , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The headline notes:   " allowing the action to be taken covertly, preventing Waledac's operators from switching domains".
So now its on slashdot.
Gee, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271736</id>
	<title>A new business model for MS</title>
	<author>Noughmad</author>
	<datestamp>1267111320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Write crappy software
2. Wait for it to get taken over by botnets
3. Sue to get the infected machines off the internet
4. ???
5. Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Write crappy software 2 .
Wait for it to get taken over by botnets 3 .
Sue to get the infected machines off the internet 4 .
? ? ? 5 .
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Write crappy software
2.
Wait for it to get taken over by botnets
3.
Sue to get the infected machines off the internet
4.
???
5.
Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272134</id>
	<title>Re:Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>all based on a mere accusation.</p></div><p>Microsoft demonstrated to the court that the domain names in question were being used solely for botnet command and control, and got an injunction.  This is a good thing.</p><p>If slashdot.org was also being used for control of a botnet, Microsoft would not have been able to shut down the domain name.  Or at "worst", there is someone at slashdot who can respond and fight the injunction.</p><p>I have a feeling the owners of these domain names were unreachable and have not contested the loss of their domains.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all based on a mere accusation.Microsoft demonstrated to the court that the domain names in question were being used solely for botnet command and control , and got an injunction .
This is a good thing.If slashdot.org was also being used for control of a botnet , Microsoft would not have been able to shut down the domain name .
Or at " worst " , there is someone at slashdot who can respond and fight the injunction.I have a feeling the owners of these domain names were unreachable and have not contested the loss of their domains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all based on a mere accusation.Microsoft demonstrated to the court that the domain names in question were being used solely for botnet command and control, and got an injunction.
This is a good thing.If slashdot.org was also being used for control of a botnet, Microsoft would not have been able to shut down the domain name.
Or at "worst", there is someone at slashdot who can respond and fight the injunction.I have a feeling the owners of these domain names were unreachable and have not contested the loss of their domains.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276640</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1267131300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Freakonomics, there's actually a chapter about the economic structure of drug gangs.  They found out that the people who actually do the selling on the streets are actually very poorly paid.  Much like McDonalds: peons get minimum wage, regional managers make a bucketload, the guys at the top are rolling in it.  Except your chances of getting shot at McDonalds are way lower.  A lot of the guys the researcher met actually asked him about jobs as janitors at his university -- better pay, better working conditions, and lower chance of getting murdered.
</p><p>That was only one drug gang, so it might not generalize.  But it makes some sense that if McD's can find millions of peons to work for peons, drug cartels can take advantage of the same socio-economic conditions and achieve the same results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Freakonomics , there 's actually a chapter about the economic structure of drug gangs .
They found out that the people who actually do the selling on the streets are actually very poorly paid .
Much like McDonalds : peons get minimum wage , regional managers make a bucketload , the guys at the top are rolling in it .
Except your chances of getting shot at McDonalds are way lower .
A lot of the guys the researcher met actually asked him about jobs as janitors at his university -- better pay , better working conditions , and lower chance of getting murdered .
That was only one drug gang , so it might not generalize .
But it makes some sense that if McD 's can find millions of peons to work for peons , drug cartels can take advantage of the same socio-economic conditions and achieve the same results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Freakonomics, there's actually a chapter about the economic structure of drug gangs.
They found out that the people who actually do the selling on the streets are actually very poorly paid.
Much like McDonalds: peons get minimum wage, regional managers make a bucketload, the guys at the top are rolling in it.
Except your chances of getting shot at McDonalds are way lower.
A lot of the guys the researcher met actually asked him about jobs as janitors at his university -- better pay, better working conditions, and lower chance of getting murdered.
That was only one drug gang, so it might not generalize.
But it makes some sense that if McD's can find millions of peons to work for peons, drug cartels can take advantage of the same socio-economic conditions and achieve the same results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Akido37</author>
	<datestamp>1267109700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. If they were smart it's easier to make money legally than illegally.
</p></div><p>It's really not.  If you've ever been involved with, or known anyone involved with selling illegal drugs, you'd know how false that statement is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
If they were smart it 's easier to make money legally than illegally .
It 's really not .
If you 've ever been involved with , or known anyone involved with selling illegal drugs , you 'd know how false that statement is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
If they were smart it's easier to make money legally than illegally.
It's really not.
If you've ever been involved with, or known anyone involved with selling illegal drugs, you'd know how false that statement is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276518</id>
	<title>Just plain silly</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267130820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The request was secretly approved by District Judge Leonie Brinkema, allowing the action to be taken covertly, preventing Waledac's operators from switching domains.</p></div><p>So they did not switch domains <em>until</em> now. And are in the process of switching <em>right now</em>. Probably being done by tomorrow.</p><p>Wow. A whole day of a bit less spam. That <em>really</em> changed things...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The request was secretly approved by District Judge Leonie Brinkema , allowing the action to be taken covertly , preventing Waledac 's operators from switching domains.So they did not switch domains until now .
And are in the process of switching right now .
Probably being done by tomorrow.Wow .
A whole day of a bit less spam .
That really changed things... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The request was secretly approved by District Judge Leonie Brinkema, allowing the action to be taken covertly, preventing Waledac's operators from switching domains.So they did not switch domains until now.
And are in the process of switching right now.
Probably being done by tomorrow.Wow.
A whole day of a bit less spam.
That really changed things... ;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271596</id>
	<title>99\% of Businesses Fail Because?</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1267110540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one knows they exist.<br>
<br>
And sometimes, that's a good thing...</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one knows they exist .
And sometimes , that 's a good thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one knows they exist.
And sometimes, that's a good thing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271372</id>
	<title>Re:"East European"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just gotta love euphemisms.</p><p>It's like in Australia, whenever a Lebanese Muslim commits a crime, the media describe the suspect of being "of Middle Eastern appearance".</p><p>They're not "East Europeans".  THEY'RE RUSSIANS.  Just cut to the chase please.</p></div><p>The Ukranians, Poles, and Chechs called. They're insulted that you're lumping them in with the Rooskies, and they're rooting your box.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just got ta love euphemisms.It 's like in Australia , whenever a Lebanese Muslim commits a crime , the media describe the suspect of being " of Middle Eastern appearance " .They 're not " East Europeans " .
THEY 'RE RUSSIANS .
Just cut to the chase please.The Ukranians , Poles , and Chechs called .
They 're insulted that you 're lumping them in with the Rooskies , and they 're rooting your box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just gotta love euphemisms.It's like in Australia, whenever a Lebanese Muslim commits a crime, the media describe the suspect of being "of Middle Eastern appearance".They're not "East Europeans".
THEY'RE RUSSIANS.
Just cut to the chase please.The Ukranians, Poles, and Chechs called.
They're insulted that you're lumping them in with the Rooskies, and they're rooting your box.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31277876</id>
	<title>Re:MS is already doing that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267093440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding? Most users click cancel on anything that's legitimate and accept on anything that uses 3 or more exclamation marks. That's the root of the problem right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
Most users click cancel on anything that 's legitimate and accept on anything that uses 3 or more exclamation marks .
That 's the root of the problem right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
Most users click cancel on anything that's legitimate and accept on anything that uses 3 or more exclamation marks.
That's the root of the problem right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273504</id>
	<title>Re:I must have missed the memo</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1267120260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Microsoft does something good (hell, even just non-evil), we like Microsoft.  When Microsoft does something evil, we don't like Microsoft.  Microsoft's actions are usually heavy on the latter, light on the former.  This is a rare positive action on Microsoft's part, so it deserves one small attaboy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Microsoft does something good ( hell , even just non-evil ) , we like Microsoft .
When Microsoft does something evil , we do n't like Microsoft .
Microsoft 's actions are usually heavy on the latter , light on the former .
This is a rare positive action on Microsoft 's part , so it deserves one small attaboy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Microsoft does something good (hell, even just non-evil), we like Microsoft.
When Microsoft does something evil, we don't like Microsoft.
Microsoft's actions are usually heavy on the latter, light on the former.
This is a rare positive action on Microsoft's part, so it deserves one small attaboy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271650</id>
	<title>Re:"East European"</title>
	<author>MrNaz</author>
	<datestamp>1267110780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chechs called. They want to know why they don't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chechs called .
They want to know why they do n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chechs called.
They want to know why they don't exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272044</id>
	<title>Re:Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1267113120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not unheard of for parties to act without the knowledge of the other party (ex parte) to prevent them from frustrating relief. For instance, sometimes you can get a seizure order of copyrighted goods without the other side's knowledge if you can prove that they'll just move the goods away if you sue them normally with notice. The moving party has to show that they have a good case, and that there's a good reason notice cannot be given. Federal courts are pretty uptight about granting ex parte orders. In this case, MS probably had very good evidence that these domains were responsible, and that giving these guys notice would have been doubly pointless. First, they won't show up to defend themselves. Second, they'll probably just redirect the bots and frustrate relief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not unheard of for parties to act without the knowledge of the other party ( ex parte ) to prevent them from frustrating relief .
For instance , sometimes you can get a seizure order of copyrighted goods without the other side 's knowledge if you can prove that they 'll just move the goods away if you sue them normally with notice .
The moving party has to show that they have a good case , and that there 's a good reason notice can not be given .
Federal courts are pretty uptight about granting ex parte orders .
In this case , MS probably had very good evidence that these domains were responsible , and that giving these guys notice would have been doubly pointless .
First , they wo n't show up to defend themselves .
Second , they 'll probably just redirect the bots and frustrate relief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not unheard of for parties to act without the knowledge of the other party (ex parte) to prevent them from frustrating relief.
For instance, sometimes you can get a seizure order of copyrighted goods without the other side's knowledge if you can prove that they'll just move the goods away if you sue them normally with notice.
The moving party has to show that they have a good case, and that there's a good reason notice cannot be given.
Federal courts are pretty uptight about granting ex parte orders.
In this case, MS probably had very good evidence that these domains were responsible, and that giving these guys notice would have been doubly pointless.
First, they won't show up to defend themselves.
Second, they'll probably just redirect the bots and frustrate relief.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272408</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1267115400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? They're ok the last days of may.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
They 're ok the last days of may .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
They're ok the last days of may.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Cyner</author>
	<datestamp>1267109400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. If they were smart it's easier to make money legally than illegally.<br>2. They have quite a few domains for a reason, and normally they don't all go dark at the exact same well-coordinated time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
If they were smart it 's easier to make money legally than illegally.2 .
They have quite a few domains for a reason , and normally they do n't all go dark at the exact same well-coordinated time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
If they were smart it's easier to make money legally than illegally.2.
They have quite a few domains for a reason, and normally they don't all go dark at the exact same well-coordinated time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274664</id>
	<title>Re:I must have missed the memo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267123980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's just because this post wasn't done by KDAWSON. If it had, it would be all about how microsoft is hurting poor russian entrepeneurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's just because this post was n't done by KDAWSON .
If it had , it would be all about how microsoft is hurting poor russian entrepeneurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's just because this post wasn't done by KDAWSON.
If it had, it would be all about how microsoft is hurting poor russian entrepeneurs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271916</id>
	<title>Re:Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1267112340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals, and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them, all based on a mere accusation.</p></div><p>I take it you've read the court proceedings and are intimately familiar with the evidence Microsoft presented before the judge?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals , and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them , all based on a mere accusation.I take it you 've read the court proceedings and are intimately familiar with the evidence Microsoft presented before the judge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals, and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them, all based on a mere accusation.I take it you've read the court proceedings and are intimately familiar with the evidence Microsoft presented before the judge?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273956</id>
	<title>Time to take Domain name control off US hands.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1267121760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so, today, a us controlled, us based corporation disabled 277 frigging domain names owned by foreigners, upon orders of a U.s. court which decided upon a suit filed by a u.s. corporation based in u.s. so, it was for fight against spam, and so it was a 'good' thing. and all the fools are cheering up now.</p><p>then tell me how long until some other organization or individual or political party files a lawsuit under u.s. law to do the same thing to foreign domain names on different justification, say, 'copyright' issues, or patent issues, or maybe, political correctness, private interests, or some other godfrigging long forgotten state law (like the ones you can find in conservative states, reminiscent of 19th century), and some judge just happens to give a verdict to that end ?</p><p>what do you think will happen to the global and transborder nature of internet at that point ? how will it affect the entire internet, and all the markets and professional fields contained in it ?</p><p>nobody on the internet is subject or tributary to u.s. laws, apart from u.s. citizens. it seems that this foolery just happened will start the move towards taking the control of domain names out of u.s.'s hands, through a consortium of countries, or u.n., god knows.</p><p>but its evident that it can no longer be let to continue this way, given the rate things are going in u.s., with those private interests trying to control the net through moves against net neutrality, acta, and lobbying like in the recent news about trying to get open source labeled piracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so , today , a us controlled , us based corporation disabled 277 frigging domain names owned by foreigners , upon orders of a U.s. court which decided upon a suit filed by a u.s. corporation based in u.s. so , it was for fight against spam , and so it was a 'good ' thing .
and all the fools are cheering up now.then tell me how long until some other organization or individual or political party files a lawsuit under u.s. law to do the same thing to foreign domain names on different justification , say , 'copyright ' issues , or patent issues , or maybe , political correctness , private interests , or some other godfrigging long forgotten state law ( like the ones you can find in conservative states , reminiscent of 19th century ) , and some judge just happens to give a verdict to that end ? what do you think will happen to the global and transborder nature of internet at that point ?
how will it affect the entire internet , and all the markets and professional fields contained in it ? nobody on the internet is subject or tributary to u.s. laws , apart from u.s. citizens. it seems that this foolery just happened will start the move towards taking the control of domain names out of u.s. 's hands , through a consortium of countries , or u.n. , god knows.but its evident that it can no longer be let to continue this way , given the rate things are going in u.s. , with those private interests trying to control the net through moves against net neutrality , acta , and lobbying like in the recent news about trying to get open source labeled piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so, today, a us controlled, us based corporation disabled 277 frigging domain names owned by foreigners, upon orders of a U.s. court which decided upon a suit filed by a u.s. corporation based in u.s. so, it was for fight against spam, and so it was a 'good' thing.
and all the fools are cheering up now.then tell me how long until some other organization or individual or political party files a lawsuit under u.s. law to do the same thing to foreign domain names on different justification, say, 'copyright' issues, or patent issues, or maybe, political correctness, private interests, or some other godfrigging long forgotten state law (like the ones you can find in conservative states, reminiscent of 19th century), and some judge just happens to give a verdict to that end ?what do you think will happen to the global and transborder nature of internet at that point ?
how will it affect the entire internet, and all the markets and professional fields contained in it ?nobody on the internet is subject or tributary to u.s. laws, apart from u.s. citizens. it seems that this foolery just happened will start the move towards taking the control of domain names out of u.s.'s hands, through a consortium of countries, or u.n., god knows.but its evident that it can no longer be let to continue this way, given the rate things are going in u.s., with those private interests trying to control the net through moves against net neutrality, acta, and lobbying like in the recent news about trying to get open source labeled piracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271492</id>
	<title>Re:One step toward active botnet fighting?</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1267109880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you can prove that your patch will in no way adversely affect any computer that it is installed on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you can prove that your patch will in no way adversely affect any computer that it is installed on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you can prove that your patch will in no way adversely affect any computer that it is installed on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31275348</id>
	<title>Anonymous domain registration?</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1267126440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you register a domain in such a way that you can't be tracked down if your domains are used as malware servers?  How do you pay the registration fee?</p><p>Do these guys lie about their name, address, e-mail, etc. then pay the bill by using a stolen credit card or forwarding the money to the registrar via Western Union or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you register a domain in such a way that you ca n't be tracked down if your domains are used as malware servers ?
How do you pay the registration fee ? Do these guys lie about their name , address , e-mail , etc .
then pay the bill by using a stolen credit card or forwarding the money to the registrar via Western Union or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you register a domain in such a way that you can't be tracked down if your domains are used as malware servers?
How do you pay the registration fee?Do these guys lie about their name, address, e-mail, etc.
then pay the bill by using a stolen credit card or forwarding the money to the registrar via Western Union or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272460</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1267115640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not really dealing with his main point. Drug dealers aren't very smart. Why else would they engage in a crime with lots of competition, disproportionate penalties and a client base that is invariably unbalanced?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not really dealing with his main point .
Drug dealers are n't very smart .
Why else would they engage in a crime with lots of competition , disproportionate penalties and a client base that is invariably unbalanced ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not really dealing with his main point.
Drug dealers aren't very smart.
Why else would they engage in a crime with lots of competition, disproportionate penalties and a client base that is invariably unbalanced?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274734</id>
	<title>Re:MS is already doing that.</title>
	<author>babboo65</author>
	<datestamp>1267124160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YUP!  It maliciously removes any software it deems bad</p><p>or competitive</p><p>or more superior</p><p>or more capable</p><p>or cheaper</p><p>or  . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YUP !
It maliciously removes any software it deems bador competitiveor more superioror more capableor cheaperor .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YUP!
It maliciously removes any software it deems bador competitiveor more superioror more capableor cheaperor  .
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271322</id>
	<title>"East European"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267108920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just gotta love euphemisms.</p><p>It's like in Australia, whenever a Lebanese Muslim commits a crime, the media describe the suspect of being "of Middle Eastern appearance".</p><p>They're not "East Europeans".  THEY'RE RUSSIANS.  Just cut to the chase please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just got ta love euphemisms.It 's like in Australia , whenever a Lebanese Muslim commits a crime , the media describe the suspect of being " of Middle Eastern appearance " .They 're not " East Europeans " .
THEY 'RE RUSSIANS .
Just cut to the chase please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just gotta love euphemisms.It's like in Australia, whenever a Lebanese Muslim commits a crime, the media describe the suspect of being "of Middle Eastern appearance".They're not "East Europeans".
THEY'RE RUSSIANS.
Just cut to the chase please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</id>
	<title>Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>J'raxis</author>
	<datestamp>1267110540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals, and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them, all based on a mere accusation.</p><p>Oh, but since we're fighting spam, I guess that's okay.</p><p>Wait until Microsoft starts doing this to go after copyright violations. Will y'all be cheering then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals , and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them , all based on a mere accusation.Oh , but since we 're fighting spam , I guess that 's okay.Wait until Microsoft starts doing this to go after copyright violations .
Will y'all be cheering then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals, and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them, all based on a mere accusation.Oh, but since we're fighting spam, I guess that's okay.Wait until Microsoft starts doing this to go after copyright violations.
Will y'all be cheering then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271370</id>
	<title>Re:"East European"</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1267109220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's not a purse...it's <b>EUROPEAN</b>!!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's not a purse...it 's EUROPEAN ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's not a purse...it's EUROPEAN!!!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274492</id>
	<title>All hope is lost here...</title>
	<author>dtjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1267123560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) This will not end botnets<br>2) Microsoft doesn't care about ending botnets<br>3) Microsoft will never cede control over their user's machines<br>4) MS Security patches will always be a finger in a leak<br>5) A good rootkit is one that still lets my Windows boot<br>6) MS doesn't really care if the Windows on my 6-yr-old laptop has suddenly become non-genuine but WGA still needs those updates<br>7) Windows 8 will be about like Windows 7<br>8) The average Microsoftie is a bing-blastin', zune totin', IE8 browsin', xbox smokin' sort of a guy.<br>9) There is no hope for a better tommorrow...only a more expensive one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) This will not end botnets2 ) Microsoft does n't care about ending botnets3 ) Microsoft will never cede control over their user 's machines4 ) MS Security patches will always be a finger in a leak5 ) A good rootkit is one that still lets my Windows boot6 ) MS does n't really care if the Windows on my 6-yr-old laptop has suddenly become non-genuine but WGA still needs those updates7 ) Windows 8 will be about like Windows 78 ) The average Microsoftie is a bing-blastin ' , zune totin ' , IE8 browsin ' , xbox smokin ' sort of a guy.9 ) There is no hope for a better tommorrow...only a more expensive one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) This will not end botnets2) Microsoft doesn't care about ending botnets3) Microsoft will never cede control over their user's machines4) MS Security patches will always be a finger in a leak5) A good rootkit is one that still lets my Windows boot6) MS doesn't really care if the Windows on my 6-yr-old laptop has suddenly become non-genuine but WGA still needs those updates7) Windows 8 will be about like Windows 78) The average Microsoftie is a bing-blastin', zune totin', IE8 browsin', xbox smokin' sort of a guy.9) There is no hope for a better tommorrow...only a more expensive one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273624</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1267120680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardcode it to fall back to slashdot.org.  Make it browse at -1 and look for instructions in AC posts disguised as trolls.  Make your trollish AC post from a public wifi behind 7 proxies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardcode it to fall back to slashdot.org .
Make it browse at -1 and look for instructions in AC posts disguised as trolls .
Make your trollish AC post from a public wifi behind 7 proxies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardcode it to fall back to slashdot.org.
Make it browse at -1 and look for instructions in AC posts disguised as trolls.
Make your trollish AC post from a public wifi behind 7 proxies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271360</id>
	<title>Re:"East European"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is yet another win for Open Source Software. If people used Open Source Operating Systems such as Linux, this would never have happened, as people would have inspected the source and stopped it before someone checked the trojan into the Git repository. </p><p>Microsoft's Git repository for Windows is not public and so people cannot inspect the source, leading to this kind of thing.</p><p>Please, people, dump your Proprietary Operating Systems and use superior OSS software instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is yet another win for Open Source Software .
If people used Open Source Operating Systems such as Linux , this would never have happened , as people would have inspected the source and stopped it before someone checked the trojan into the Git repository .
Microsoft 's Git repository for Windows is not public and so people can not inspect the source , leading to this kind of thing.Please , people , dump your Proprietary Operating Systems and use superior OSS software instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is yet another win for Open Source Software.
If people used Open Source Operating Systems such as Linux, this would never have happened, as people would have inspected the source and stopped it before someone checked the trojan into the Git repository.
Microsoft's Git repository for Windows is not public and so people cannot inspect the source, leading to this kind of thing.Please, people, dump your Proprietary Operating Systems and use superior OSS software instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273702</id>
	<title>Re:"East European"</title>
	<author>TheCycoONE</author>
	<datestamp>1267120980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux isn't all that secure in the way people care about.  Most Linux users care about and are aware of security so they tend to only run programs they get off their package manager or other trusted sources and not run them as root.</p><p>However I've introduced windows users to Linux, and they keep their windows habits like downloading random programs off the internet until told otherwise.  A malicious program in Linux can do all the bad things a malicious program in Windows can; and if the program has a little dialog that tells people to run 'sudo programname' if it has limited permissions, I'm sure a lot of people could be socially engineered to do so.</p><p>SELinux addresses some of these problems (eg. a program cannot modify files outside of its security context even if they are owned by the same user) but it is not feasible for an inexperienced/casual user to configure.</p><p>As has been mentioned before, there are two/three things that keep Linux more secure at the moment besides the average technical know-how of its users.</p><p>1.  The main one: obscurity.  There are not nearly as many Linux machines, and those have fairly diverse sets of software installed on them.</p><p>2.  All software (installed through package repositories) have a single update mechanism, making it easier to keep all programs up to date.  In windows lots of programs don't have any built in mechanism for determining if a newer version is available, so old exploitable software can go unnoticed for a long time.</p><p>3.  Users and Groups existed since the beginning so all software is written to avoid requiring root access unless necessary.  This is a problem with windows since the UAC comes up often enough and is easy enough to bypass by default (click ok) that users do it automatically.  At this point it's too late though, malicious code that can access my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/x directory already has access to lots of sensitive information (browser history, personal files, etc.), and can transmit that information over the internet.</p><p>I love Linux, but it is not a security fix-all for uneducated users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux is n't all that secure in the way people care about .
Most Linux users care about and are aware of security so they tend to only run programs they get off their package manager or other trusted sources and not run them as root.However I 've introduced windows users to Linux , and they keep their windows habits like downloading random programs off the internet until told otherwise .
A malicious program in Linux can do all the bad things a malicious program in Windows can ; and if the program has a little dialog that tells people to run 'sudo programname ' if it has limited permissions , I 'm sure a lot of people could be socially engineered to do so.SELinux addresses some of these problems ( eg .
a program can not modify files outside of its security context even if they are owned by the same user ) but it is not feasible for an inexperienced/casual user to configure.As has been mentioned before , there are two/three things that keep Linux more secure at the moment besides the average technical know-how of its users.1 .
The main one : obscurity .
There are not nearly as many Linux machines , and those have fairly diverse sets of software installed on them.2 .
All software ( installed through package repositories ) have a single update mechanism , making it easier to keep all programs up to date .
In windows lots of programs do n't have any built in mechanism for determining if a newer version is available , so old exploitable software can go unnoticed for a long time.3 .
Users and Groups existed since the beginning so all software is written to avoid requiring root access unless necessary .
This is a problem with windows since the UAC comes up often enough and is easy enough to bypass by default ( click ok ) that users do it automatically .
At this point it 's too late though , malicious code that can access my /home/x directory already has access to lots of sensitive information ( browser history , personal files , etc .
) , and can transmit that information over the internet.I love Linux , but it is not a security fix-all for uneducated users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux isn't all that secure in the way people care about.
Most Linux users care about and are aware of security so they tend to only run programs they get off their package manager or other trusted sources and not run them as root.However I've introduced windows users to Linux, and they keep their windows habits like downloading random programs off the internet until told otherwise.
A malicious program in Linux can do all the bad things a malicious program in Windows can; and if the program has a little dialog that tells people to run 'sudo programname' if it has limited permissions, I'm sure a lot of people could be socially engineered to do so.SELinux addresses some of these problems (eg.
a program cannot modify files outside of its security context even if they are owned by the same user) but it is not feasible for an inexperienced/casual user to configure.As has been mentioned before, there are two/three things that keep Linux more secure at the moment besides the average technical know-how of its users.1.
The main one: obscurity.
There are not nearly as many Linux machines, and those have fairly diverse sets of software installed on them.2.
All software (installed through package repositories) have a single update mechanism, making it easier to keep all programs up to date.
In windows lots of programs don't have any built in mechanism for determining if a newer version is available, so old exploitable software can go unnoticed for a long time.3.
Users and Groups existed since the beginning so all software is written to avoid requiring root access unless necessary.
This is a problem with windows since the UAC comes up often enough and is easy enough to bypass by default (click ok) that users do it automatically.
At this point it's too late though, malicious code that can access my /home/x directory already has access to lots of sensitive information (browser history, personal files, etc.
), and can transmit that information over the internet.I love Linux, but it is not a security fix-all for uneducated users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272164</id>
	<title>Re:Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267113960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, you are right, maybe those spammers should bring up a law suit against MS for doing this, you know, on the human rights reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , you are right , maybe those spammers should bring up a law suit against MS for doing this , you know , on the human rights reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, you are right, maybe those spammers should bring up a law suit against MS for doing this, you know, on the human rights reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272360</id>
	<title>Re:I must have missed the memo</title>
	<author>OolimPhon</author>
	<datestamp>1267115100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But... we've always been at war with Oceania!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But... we 've always been at war with Oceania !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But... we've always been at war with Oceania!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271588</id>
	<title>Deactivated?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267110540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>New set of domains acquired and botnet spamming again in 3..2..1..</htmltext>
<tokenext>New set of domains acquired and botnet spamming again in 3..2..1. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New set of domains acquired and botnet spamming again in 3..2..1..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272140</id>
	<title>Re:Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1267113720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone is selling pirated versions of Microsoft products, and Microsoft has enough evidence to convince a judge, then yes-- I will be cheering. Why wouldn't I?</p><p>It saves consumers from getting ripped-off, and it shuts down some scumbag. Win-win, as far as I'm concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone is selling pirated versions of Microsoft products , and Microsoft has enough evidence to convince a judge , then yes-- I will be cheering .
Why would n't I ? It saves consumers from getting ripped-off , and it shuts down some scumbag .
Win-win , as far as I 'm concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone is selling pirated versions of Microsoft products, and Microsoft has enough evidence to convince a judge, then yes-- I will be cheering.
Why wouldn't I?It saves consumers from getting ripped-off, and it shuts down some scumbag.
Win-win, as far as I'm concerned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756</id>
	<title>I must have missed the memo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is today the day we like Microsoft??  I just want to make sure I have that right.  Its not some trick to cover them acting like vigilantes is it??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is today the day we like Microsoft ? ?
I just want to make sure I have that right .
Its not some trick to cover them acting like vigilantes is it ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is today the day we like Microsoft??
I just want to make sure I have that right.
Its not some trick to cover them acting like vigilantes is it?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31275962</id>
	<title>Secretly?</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1267128660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was a secret, it wouldn't be on slashdot ; )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was a secret , it would n't be on slashdot ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was a secret, it wouldn't be on slashdot ; )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271418</id>
	<title>Re:"East European"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has nothing to do with malicious code in the OS. It's to do with malicious code exploiting crap code in the OS. And all software has *some* crap code in it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has nothing to do with malicious code in the OS .
It 's to do with malicious code exploiting crap code in the OS .
And all software has * some * crap code in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has nothing to do with malicious code in the OS.
It's to do with malicious code exploiting crap code in the OS.
And all software has *some* crap code in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340</id>
	<title>One step toward active botnet fighting?</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1267109100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is nice (if reactionary) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting' the target computers with a patch, or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help?</p><p>Would Microsoft ever go that far?  Would that be admitting that the only solution to the holes in Windows is vigilantism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nice ( if reactionary ) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting ' the target computers with a patch , or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help ? Would Microsoft ever go that far ?
Would that be admitting that the only solution to the holes in Windows is vigilantism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nice (if reactionary) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting' the target computers with a patch, or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help?Would Microsoft ever go that far?
Would that be admitting that the only solution to the holes in Windows is vigilantism?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271690</id>
	<title>MS is already doing that.</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1267111080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/malwareremove/default.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Malicious Software Removal Tool</a> [microsoft.com] that is rolled out in in the monthly patch cycle. It kills software MS deems bad. No court approval for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of Malicious Software Removal Tool [ microsoft.com ] that is rolled out in in the monthly patch cycle .
It kills software MS deems bad .
No court approval for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of Malicious Software Removal Tool [microsoft.com] that is rolled out in in the monthly patch cycle.
It kills software MS deems bad.
No court approval for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272130</id>
	<title>yep, MS is the hero, for about 15 mins...</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1267113660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The request was secretly approved by District Judge Leonie Brinkema, allowing the action to be taken covertly, preventing Waledac's operators from switching domains."</p><p>That is, till they figure out they don't have those domains anymore, and go to their backup DNS server.    Like they don't have a way to switch control with or without warning.</p><p>Sometimes I wonder if MS had planners like these criminals, we might actually get a decent OS from them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The request was secretly approved by District Judge Leonie Brinkema , allowing the action to be taken covertly , preventing Waledac 's operators from switching domains .
" That is , till they figure out they do n't have those domains anymore , and go to their backup DNS server .
Like they do n't have a way to switch control with or without warning.Sometimes I wonder if MS had planners like these criminals , we might actually get a decent OS from them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The request was secretly approved by District Judge Leonie Brinkema, allowing the action to be taken covertly, preventing Waledac's operators from switching domains.
"That is, till they figure out they don't have those domains anymore, and go to their backup DNS server.
Like they don't have a way to switch control with or without warning.Sometimes I wonder if MS had planners like these criminals, we might actually get a decent OS from them...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31280374</id>
	<title>Re:drones</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267107360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're too kind.<br><br>I say, let the punishment fit the crime.  Convicted spammers should be locked in a cell where a computer voice reads aloud every single message they sent, in full, once for each person they sent it to.  And it should be paused any time they fall asleep, and resume from the beginning of the current message when they awaken.  And they should not be let out of the cell for any reason until they listen to every single one.<br><br>And they should have Spam for supper every night, the whole time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're too kind.I say , let the punishment fit the crime .
Convicted spammers should be locked in a cell where a computer voice reads aloud every single message they sent , in full , once for each person they sent it to .
And it should be paused any time they fall asleep , and resume from the beginning of the current message when they awaken .
And they should not be let out of the cell for any reason until they listen to every single one.And they should have Spam for supper every night , the whole time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're too kind.I say, let the punishment fit the crime.
Convicted spammers should be locked in a cell where a computer voice reads aloud every single message they sent, in full, once for each person they sent it to.
And it should be paused any time they fall asleep, and resume from the beginning of the current message when they awaken.
And they should not be let out of the cell for any reason until they listen to every single one.And they should have Spam for supper every night, the whole time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31278428</id>
	<title>Re:MS is already doing that.</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267095480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Most users accept all updates from MS (and pretty<br>&gt; much any software vendor) without even so much as<br>&gt; looking at the titles of the files their downloading.<br> <br>Yeah.  I typically do apt-get dist-upgrade without reading all the individual package names, too.  The main exception is when I want to know if there's a kernel update or not, because it's not a convenient time to reboot (in which case if there's a kernel update I'll just wait and do the update later when it's more convenient).  (Even then, I don't read through the whole list; I just grep it, or if I'm using the GUI update thingy I quickly scroll the alphabetical list down to the li section and look for linux-image to see if it's there or not.  Or I don't bother, and just put the update off until a time when it doesn't matter if I need to reboot or not.)<br> <br>I don't think it's reasonable to expect every user to examine every update and approve them individually.  All of these updates are for software packages that I either deliberately selected, or implicitly selected by installing something that depends on them.  I know it's software that I want.  Why should I have to approve every *update* to the software as well?  Next you're going to say I should read all the source code, but I don't have time for that.  I use a *lot* of software.  I don't even know all the languages that some of it is written in.  At some point, I have to pick out software that I think will do what I want, install it, and just *use* it.  You know, so I can get something useful done.  That is why I have a computer, after all.<br> <br>If there were a particular software package that gained a reputation for putting unwanted things in its security updates, I'd probably reconsider whether I really wanted to be using that package.<br> <br>Sure, before it got to that point, the Debian package maintainer would probably consider repackaging the upstream material in a way that came more in line with Debian's guidelines, and if not then the Debian folks would probably consider getting a different package maintainer.  And then there's the matter of the security team, which manages security updates, which is what I'm installing in most cases.<br> <br>But setting all of that to one side for the moment, let's assume for the sake of argument that this wasn't being done, and so the updates for a given package DID have stuff in that I didn't want on my computer.  (I'm not talking here about a few extra features I don't happen to need; I'm talking about stuff that is actively bad and fundamentally not at all in line with the stated purpose of the package.)  Do you know what I'd do?<br> <br>I'd probably go find some other software to use that would do what I want and NOT have undesirable baggage in its updates, and then I'd uninstall the offending package.  Because I have other things to do with my time than reading through lists of every single update.  Any software that's so badly maintained that it makes me do that isn't worth my time.<br> <br>By the same token, I don't think it's reasonable to expect Windows users to screen the list of security updates they're getting from Microsoft.  These are updates for Windows.  Windows is software they have chosen to use.  There are other choices, but they've chosen Windows.  Clearly they want to use Windows.  They need to keep it up to date on its security patches, because failure to do so is a leading cause of problems.  (Not THE leading cause, of course.  That would be user error.  But not applying security updates is also a very common cause of trouble.)<br> <br>What's to decide?  If the updates do become so egregious that they make you question whether you want to keep using Windows, then hey, there ARE other options.  Meanwhile, hey, apply the patches.  They can *NOT* be as bad as all the malware you get if you don't bother.<br> <br>Besides, if there IS something bad in one of the updates, almost nobody is sufficiently skeptical and jaded to read through the marketing-speak and figure out what it is just from the name.  You'd need a code book or</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Most users accept all updates from MS ( and pretty &gt; much any software vendor ) without even so much as &gt; looking at the titles of the files their downloading .
Yeah. I typically do apt-get dist-upgrade without reading all the individual package names , too .
The main exception is when I want to know if there 's a kernel update or not , because it 's not a convenient time to reboot ( in which case if there 's a kernel update I 'll just wait and do the update later when it 's more convenient ) .
( Even then , I do n't read through the whole list ; I just grep it , or if I 'm using the GUI update thingy I quickly scroll the alphabetical list down to the li section and look for linux-image to see if it 's there or not .
Or I do n't bother , and just put the update off until a time when it does n't matter if I need to reboot or not .
) I do n't think it 's reasonable to expect every user to examine every update and approve them individually .
All of these updates are for software packages that I either deliberately selected , or implicitly selected by installing something that depends on them .
I know it 's software that I want .
Why should I have to approve every * update * to the software as well ?
Next you 're going to say I should read all the source code , but I do n't have time for that .
I use a * lot * of software .
I do n't even know all the languages that some of it is written in .
At some point , I have to pick out software that I think will do what I want , install it , and just * use * it .
You know , so I can get something useful done .
That is why I have a computer , after all .
If there were a particular software package that gained a reputation for putting unwanted things in its security updates , I 'd probably reconsider whether I really wanted to be using that package .
Sure , before it got to that point , the Debian package maintainer would probably consider repackaging the upstream material in a way that came more in line with Debian 's guidelines , and if not then the Debian folks would probably consider getting a different package maintainer .
And then there 's the matter of the security team , which manages security updates , which is what I 'm installing in most cases .
But setting all of that to one side for the moment , let 's assume for the sake of argument that this was n't being done , and so the updates for a given package DID have stuff in that I did n't want on my computer .
( I 'm not talking here about a few extra features I do n't happen to need ; I 'm talking about stuff that is actively bad and fundamentally not at all in line with the stated purpose of the package .
) Do you know what I 'd do ?
I 'd probably go find some other software to use that would do what I want and NOT have undesirable baggage in its updates , and then I 'd uninstall the offending package .
Because I have other things to do with my time than reading through lists of every single update .
Any software that 's so badly maintained that it makes me do that is n't worth my time .
By the same token , I do n't think it 's reasonable to expect Windows users to screen the list of security updates they 're getting from Microsoft .
These are updates for Windows .
Windows is software they have chosen to use .
There are other choices , but they 've chosen Windows .
Clearly they want to use Windows .
They need to keep it up to date on its security patches , because failure to do so is a leading cause of problems .
( Not THE leading cause , of course .
That would be user error .
But not applying security updates is also a very common cause of trouble .
) What 's to decide ?
If the updates do become so egregious that they make you question whether you want to keep using Windows , then hey , there ARE other options .
Meanwhile , hey , apply the patches .
They can * NOT * be as bad as all the malware you get if you do n't bother .
Besides , if there IS something bad in one of the updates , almost nobody is sufficiently skeptical and jaded to read through the marketing-speak and figure out what it is just from the name .
You 'd need a code book or</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Most users accept all updates from MS (and pretty&gt; much any software vendor) without even so much as&gt; looking at the titles of the files their downloading.
Yeah.  I typically do apt-get dist-upgrade without reading all the individual package names, too.
The main exception is when I want to know if there's a kernel update or not, because it's not a convenient time to reboot (in which case if there's a kernel update I'll just wait and do the update later when it's more convenient).
(Even then, I don't read through the whole list; I just grep it, or if I'm using the GUI update thingy I quickly scroll the alphabetical list down to the li section and look for linux-image to see if it's there or not.
Or I don't bother, and just put the update off until a time when it doesn't matter if I need to reboot or not.
) I don't think it's reasonable to expect every user to examine every update and approve them individually.
All of these updates are for software packages that I either deliberately selected, or implicitly selected by installing something that depends on them.
I know it's software that I want.
Why should I have to approve every *update* to the software as well?
Next you're going to say I should read all the source code, but I don't have time for that.
I use a *lot* of software.
I don't even know all the languages that some of it is written in.
At some point, I have to pick out software that I think will do what I want, install it, and just *use* it.
You know, so I can get something useful done.
That is why I have a computer, after all.
If there were a particular software package that gained a reputation for putting unwanted things in its security updates, I'd probably reconsider whether I really wanted to be using that package.
Sure, before it got to that point, the Debian package maintainer would probably consider repackaging the upstream material in a way that came more in line with Debian's guidelines, and if not then the Debian folks would probably consider getting a different package maintainer.
And then there's the matter of the security team, which manages security updates, which is what I'm installing in most cases.
But setting all of that to one side for the moment, let's assume for the sake of argument that this wasn't being done, and so the updates for a given package DID have stuff in that I didn't want on my computer.
(I'm not talking here about a few extra features I don't happen to need; I'm talking about stuff that is actively bad and fundamentally not at all in line with the stated purpose of the package.
)  Do you know what I'd do?
I'd probably go find some other software to use that would do what I want and NOT have undesirable baggage in its updates, and then I'd uninstall the offending package.
Because I have other things to do with my time than reading through lists of every single update.
Any software that's so badly maintained that it makes me do that isn't worth my time.
By the same token, I don't think it's reasonable to expect Windows users to screen the list of security updates they're getting from Microsoft.
These are updates for Windows.
Windows is software they have chosen to use.
There are other choices, but they've chosen Windows.
Clearly they want to use Windows.
They need to keep it up to date on its security patches, because failure to do so is a leading cause of problems.
(Not THE leading cause, of course.
That would be user error.
But not applying security updates is also a very common cause of trouble.
) What's to decide?
If the updates do become so egregious that they make you question whether you want to keep using Windows, then hey, there ARE other options.
Meanwhile, hey, apply the patches.
They can *NOT* be as bad as all the malware you get if you don't bother.
Besides, if there IS something bad in one of the updates, almost nobody is sufficiently skeptical and jaded to read through the marketing-speak and figure out what it is just from the name.
You'd need a code book or</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272848</id>
	<title>more left wing dribble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267117560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dammm thoze acteevist librawl judges and their antie-entrailpranewership soshallizm. stooping the freedumb of the true amariken hard workin man to make an eazy livin.
TeaBaggers rule! (or maybe just drool a lot)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dammm thoze acteevist librawl judges and their antie-entrailpranewership soshallizm .
stooping the freedumb of the true amariken hard workin man to make an eazy livin .
TeaBaggers rule !
( or maybe just drool a lot )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dammm thoze acteevist librawl judges and their antie-entrailpranewership soshallizm.
stooping the freedumb of the true amariken hard workin man to make an eazy livin.
TeaBaggers rule!
(or maybe just drool a lot)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272066</id>
	<title>Re:MS is already doing that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ever heard of <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/malwareremove/default.aspx" title="microsoft.com">Malicious Software Removal Tool</a> [microsoft.com] that is rolled out in in the monthly patch cycle. It kills software MS deems bad. No court approval for that.</p></div><p>No court approval needed, you clicked that you agreed with the TOS, EULA, description of what these files contain.  Last time I used MS update (admittedly over a year ago) each download had it's own name.  If there was a name like Malicious Software Removal Tool I would definitely take a peek inside the description to see exactly what it was doing.</p><p>This brings us back to the whole user issue.  Most users accept all updates from MS (and pretty much any software vendor) without even so much as looking at the titles of the files their downloading.  Maybe if people took a little more responsibility they wouldn't be surprised as to why their friendly purple gorilla buddy disappeared (I thought that thing had died years ago but I just saw him on someone's computer in the library last week).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of Malicious Software Removal Tool [ microsoft.com ] that is rolled out in in the monthly patch cycle .
It kills software MS deems bad .
No court approval for that.No court approval needed , you clicked that you agreed with the TOS , EULA , description of what these files contain .
Last time I used MS update ( admittedly over a year ago ) each download had it 's own name .
If there was a name like Malicious Software Removal Tool I would definitely take a peek inside the description to see exactly what it was doing.This brings us back to the whole user issue .
Most users accept all updates from MS ( and pretty much any software vendor ) without even so much as looking at the titles of the files their downloading .
Maybe if people took a little more responsibility they would n't be surprised as to why their friendly purple gorilla buddy disappeared ( I thought that thing had died years ago but I just saw him on someone 's computer in the library last week ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of Malicious Software Removal Tool [microsoft.com] that is rolled out in in the monthly patch cycle.
It kills software MS deems bad.
No court approval for that.No court approval needed, you clicked that you agreed with the TOS, EULA, description of what these files contain.
Last time I used MS update (admittedly over a year ago) each download had it's own name.
If there was a name like Malicious Software Removal Tool I would definitely take a peek inside the description to see exactly what it was doing.This brings us back to the whole user issue.
Most users accept all updates from MS (and pretty much any software vendor) without even so much as looking at the titles of the files their downloading.
Maybe if people took a little more responsibility they wouldn't be surprised as to why their friendly purple gorilla buddy disappeared (I thought that thing had died years ago but I just saw him on someone's computer in the library last week).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271806</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Afty0r</author>
	<datestamp>1267111680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1. If they were smart it's easier to make money legally than illegally.</p></div></blockquote><p>Even if I wasn't handing over around half my income to the gubmint, I doubt this would be true. If it were true there wouldn't be many crims left...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
If they were smart it 's easier to make money legally than illegally.Even if I was n't handing over around half my income to the gubmint , I doubt this would be true .
If it were true there would n't be many crims left.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
If they were smart it's easier to make money legally than illegally.Even if I wasn't handing over around half my income to the gubmint, I doubt this would be true.
If it were true there wouldn't be many crims left...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273222</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1267119360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just another case of Microsoft going after successful businessmen, in order to drive them out of an arena that Microsoft is planning on taking over. Soon, you're e-mail will be plastered with offers for MSV1AGRA, and letters from the son of the deposed Chaiman of Microsoft who needs your help getting money out of Redmond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another case of Microsoft going after successful businessmen , in order to drive them out of an arena that Microsoft is planning on taking over .
Soon , you 're e-mail will be plastered with offers for MSV1AGRA , and letters from the son of the deposed Chaiman of Microsoft who needs your help getting money out of Redmond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another case of Microsoft going after successful businessmen, in order to drive them out of an arena that Microsoft is planning on taking over.
Soon, you're e-mail will be plastered with offers for MSV1AGRA, and letters from the son of the deposed Chaiman of Microsoft who needs your help getting money out of Redmond.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272028</id>
	<title>Secret Order For A Reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's kind of ironic how both the courts and Microsoft wanted to keep this secret, but slashdot here has no respect for that. Does it occur to anyone here that there was a reason they wanted it to be secret? Maybe they didn't want these organizations retaliating?

This kind of reminds me of the one time a news reporter was being held hostage. The government wanted to keep the fact that she was hostage out of the public eye in order to lower the ransom fee. However, wikipedia editors thought it better to post to it to the public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's kind of ironic how both the courts and Microsoft wanted to keep this secret , but slashdot here has no respect for that .
Does it occur to anyone here that there was a reason they wanted it to be secret ?
Maybe they did n't want these organizations retaliating ?
This kind of reminds me of the one time a news reporter was being held hostage .
The government wanted to keep the fact that she was hostage out of the public eye in order to lower the ransom fee .
However , wikipedia editors thought it better to post to it to the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's kind of ironic how both the courts and Microsoft wanted to keep this secret, but slashdot here has no respect for that.
Does it occur to anyone here that there was a reason they wanted it to be secret?
Maybe they didn't want these organizations retaliating?
This kind of reminds me of the one time a news reporter was being held hostage.
The government wanted to keep the fact that she was hostage out of the public eye in order to lower the ransom fee.
However, wikipedia editors thought it better to post to it to the public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271328</id>
	<title>Good work...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267108980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but where will I get all my v14gra now??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but where will I get all my v14gra now ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but where will I get all my v14gra now?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271586</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1267110540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution, might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands?</p></div><p>You'd have to store that IP somewhere, which means in the clients, which means it'll be found and either disabled or lead them right to your door.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution , might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands ? You 'd have to store that IP somewhere , which means in the clients , which means it 'll be found and either disabled or lead them right to your door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution, might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands?You'd have to store that IP somewhere, which means in the clients, which means it'll be found and either disabled or lead them right to your door.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271936</id>
	<title>Re:Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1267112580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree - very slippery slope - but it seems very logical in this case - I'm wrestling with how I feel about that.</p><p>The domains were suspended, not taken away - presumably a legitimate owner can get the domain back with no problem (it is a requirement that your registration information be legitimate, and the owner exists.  Had the domains had proper registered owners, that information would have been public and the owners could have been hit legally, directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree - very slippery slope - but it seems very logical in this case - I 'm wrestling with how I feel about that.The domains were suspended , not taken away - presumably a legitimate owner can get the domain back with no problem ( it is a requirement that your registration information be legitimate , and the owner exists .
Had the domains had proper registered owners , that information would have been public and the owners could have been hit legally , directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree - very slippery slope - but it seems very logical in this case - I'm wrestling with how I feel about that.The domains were suspended, not taken away - presumably a legitimate owner can get the domain back with no problem (it is a requirement that your registration information be legitimate, and the owner exists.
Had the domains had proper registered owners, that information would have been public and the owners could have been hit legally, directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276374</id>
	<title>Re:Cyber war initiated by DOJ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267130280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I was kind of worried to see that almost no one noticed that verisign provides registry services, not registrar, as stated in the summary. THIS IS HUGE. Now, you can get a court order in the state of California and shut down someone's domains in Europe, China, Russia, etc. I don't understand why Verisign agreed to do this so easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I was kind of worried to see that almost no one noticed that verisign provides registry services , not registrar , as stated in the summary .
THIS IS HUGE .
Now , you can get a court order in the state of California and shut down someone 's domains in Europe , China , Russia , etc .
I do n't understand why Verisign agreed to do this so easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I was kind of worried to see that almost no one noticed that verisign provides registry services, not registrar, as stated in the summary.
THIS IS HUGE.
Now, you can get a court order in the state of California and shut down someone's domains in Europe, China, Russia, etc.
I don't understand why Verisign agreed to do this so easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271754</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution, might not the botnet be configured  to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands?  Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network...</p></div><p>What if it was a tight DNS resolution?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution , might not the botnet be configured to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands ?
Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network...What if it was a tight DNS resolution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the control machines loose DNS resolution, might not the botnet be configured  to fall back to connecting to well known IP addresses to accept commands?
Seems like the logical thing to do if you are creating an illegal network...What if it was a tight DNS resolution?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31275042</id>
	<title>Re:drones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267125240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1,5 billions of spam messages per day. Multiply each message by 10 seconds of working time it takes to activate e-mail window and delete the spam-message, and it becomes clear what damage to the word economy it brings. Let alone disrupted work-flow.</p><p>It is the weapon of mass economic destruction.</p><p>Such spammers should be warned, once, twice, and if they do not cool down a drone should come above their building and shoot a "Hellfire" missile right into the server room.</p><p>Or at least black-clad agents should enter the server room and sprinkle some special solution into the spam-servers, which becomes conductive after some time and shortcut.</p><p>This I would call a mild government response.</p></div><p>On the contrary, the economy is helped the need for commercial spam filtering solutions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1,5 billions of spam messages per day .
Multiply each message by 10 seconds of working time it takes to activate e-mail window and delete the spam-message , and it becomes clear what damage to the word economy it brings .
Let alone disrupted work-flow.It is the weapon of mass economic destruction.Such spammers should be warned , once , twice , and if they do not cool down a drone should come above their building and shoot a " Hellfire " missile right into the server room.Or at least black-clad agents should enter the server room and sprinkle some special solution into the spam-servers , which becomes conductive after some time and shortcut.This I would call a mild government response.On the contrary , the economy is helped the need for commercial spam filtering solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1,5 billions of spam messages per day.
Multiply each message by 10 seconds of working time it takes to activate e-mail window and delete the spam-message, and it becomes clear what damage to the word economy it brings.
Let alone disrupted work-flow.It is the weapon of mass economic destruction.Such spammers should be warned, once, twice, and if they do not cool down a drone should come above their building and shoot a "Hellfire" missile right into the server room.Or at least black-clad agents should enter the server room and sprinkle some special solution into the spam-servers, which becomes conductive after some time and shortcut.This I would call a mild government response.On the contrary, the economy is helped the need for commercial spam filtering solutions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272152</id>
	<title>Fair and Balanced</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all part of our new 'Fair and Balanced' reporting initiative.</p><p>One day a year we publish something pro-Microsoft. That way when accused of bias we can say 'see, we published the one good thing you did last year, we are just still waiting on something this year.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all part of our new 'Fair and Balanced ' reporting initiative.One day a year we publish something pro-Microsoft .
That way when accused of bias we can say 'see , we published the one good thing you did last year , we are just still waiting on something this year .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all part of our new 'Fair and Balanced' reporting initiative.One day a year we publish something pro-Microsoft.
That way when accused of bias we can say 'see, we published the one good thing you did last year, we are just still waiting on something this year.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31275390</id>
	<title>The Domain Lock Solution</title>
	<author>konohitowa</author>
	<datestamp>1267126680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought this action was interesting. Today I learned that MS did something I agree with via domain locking. Yesterday I learned that MS did something I disagreed with via domain locking (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/24/1939257/Cryptome-in-Hot-Water-Again).</p><p>I'm not quite sure how I feel about the totality of this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought this action was interesting .
Today I learned that MS did something I agree with via domain locking .
Yesterday I learned that MS did something I disagreed with via domain locking ( http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/24/1939257/Cryptome-in-Hot-Water-Again ) .I 'm not quite sure how I feel about the totality of this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought this action was interesting.
Today I learned that MS did something I agree with via domain locking.
Yesterday I learned that MS did something I disagreed with via domain locking (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/24/1939257/Cryptome-in-Hot-Water-Again).I'm not quite sure how I feel about the totality of this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272434</id>
	<title>Re:Standing</title>
	<author>VertigoAce</author>
	<datestamp>1267115520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume that by owning @hotmail.com and @microsoft.com, Microsoft itself was the target of a large amount of spam from this botnet. That would give Microsoft standing to sue, as well as a lot of evidence to back up its claims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume that by owning @ hotmail.com and @ microsoft.com , Microsoft itself was the target of a large amount of spam from this botnet .
That would give Microsoft standing to sue , as well as a lot of evidence to back up its claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume that by owning @hotmail.com and @microsoft.com, Microsoft itself was the target of a large amount of spam from this botnet.
That would give Microsoft standing to sue, as well as a lot of evidence to back up its claims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273098</id>
	<title>Re:"East European"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267118640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried linux. Installed pretty easy.<br>Wanted to surf the net. Found that pretty easy.<br>Wanted to watch a wmv video. FAIL.<br>Wanted to play one of my games so I popped the cd in. FAIL.<br>Needed to open a spreadsheet from work. The formatting was messed up. FAIL.</p><p>Went back to windows. Was able to surf the net, watch a wmv video, play my game, and my spreadsheet was formatted properly.</p><p>Until the average person can hop on a linux machine and be able to do everything they need to do, it will always be inferior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried linux .
Installed pretty easy.Wanted to surf the net .
Found that pretty easy.Wanted to watch a wmv video .
FAIL.Wanted to play one of my games so I popped the cd in .
FAIL.Needed to open a spreadsheet from work .
The formatting was messed up .
FAIL.Went back to windows .
Was able to surf the net , watch a wmv video , play my game , and my spreadsheet was formatted properly.Until the average person can hop on a linux machine and be able to do everything they need to do , it will always be inferior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried linux.
Installed pretty easy.Wanted to surf the net.
Found that pretty easy.Wanted to watch a wmv video.
FAIL.Wanted to play one of my games so I popped the cd in.
FAIL.Needed to open a spreadsheet from work.
The formatting was messed up.
FAIL.Went back to windows.
Was able to surf the net, watch a wmv video, play my game, and my spreadsheet was formatted properly.Until the average person can hop on a linux machine and be able to do everything they need to do, it will always be inferior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31281388</id>
	<title>Re:MS is already doing that.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1267117800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the reason they don't:</p><p><tt>zippthorne ~$ sudo find / -mount -type f | wc -l<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 667080 </tt></p><p>Now, granted that's not on a windows system, but the point is that there are so many files each patch might deal with <em>hundreds</em>.  By the time you finished just <em>reading</em> all the files, it might be patch Tuesday all over again.</p><p>Do you know what all those half-million files are for?  I sure don't.  I'm sure a good portion are non-executable media files, but that's still a lot to sift through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the reason they do n't : zippthorne ~ $ sudo find / -mount -type f | wc -l     667080 Now , granted that 's not on a windows system , but the point is that there are so many files each patch might deal with hundreds .
By the time you finished just reading all the files , it might be patch Tuesday all over again.Do you know what all those half-million files are for ?
I sure do n't .
I 'm sure a good portion are non-executable media files , but that 's still a lot to sift through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the reason they don't:zippthorne ~$ sudo find / -mount -type f | wc -l
    667080 Now, granted that's not on a windows system, but the point is that there are so many files each patch might deal with hundreds.
By the time you finished just reading all the files, it might be patch Tuesday all over again.Do you know what all those half-million files are for?
I sure don't.
I'm sure a good portion are non-executable media files, but that's still a lot to sift through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271610</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267110600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's really not.  If you've ever been involved with, or known anyone involved with selling <b>health insurance,</b> you'd know how false that statement is.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really not .
If you 've ever been involved with , or known anyone involved with selling health insurance , you 'd know how false that statement is.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really not.
If you've ever been involved with, or known anyone involved with selling health insurance, you'd know how false that statement is.Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272050</id>
	<title>Re:Secret courts, secret orders, ...</title>
	<author>Steve Hamlin</author>
	<datestamp>1267113120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It called a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). In civil court cases, the Plaintiff can ask the judge to issue a TRO to prevent ongoing harmful conduct that later monetary damages after trial are insufficient to remedy.  In other words: "Your Honor, this can't wait until the trial is over."  The standards are high, and courts do not do this this without a very compelling set of alleged facts.  Requesting Plaintiffs are often required to post a significant cash bond to cover damage to the enjoined party in case the TRO is not, in hindsight, the proper pre-trial remedy.
<p>
In most cases, a court won't issue a TRO without notice to the defendants and a hearing to allow the sought-to-be-enjoined party to response to the Motion for TRO.  In some situations, like this, where mere notice might allow the Defendants to further the harm, the court orders the TRO without notice to the enjoined party.  The Order allows the Plaintiffs to demand third parties to do or stop doing something for the enjoined party - the first notice to them is when they can't access bank accounts, or their vendor refuses to cooperate, etc.
</p><p>
The safeguards built into the system are (1) the cash bond, (2) a neutral judge that weighs the likelihood of irreversible damage and proof of the initial allegations against the harm from enjoining a party before a verdict, and most importantly, (3) that these are TEMPORARY.  The judge will order a hearing with BOTH parties within (usually) 10 days of the TRO issuance, at which time the Defendants can object, rebut the Plaintiff's allegations, and ask the court to lift the injunction.  At that point, it is a dispute between two noticed parties before a neutral court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It called a Temporary Restraining Order ( TRO ) .
In civil court cases , the Plaintiff can ask the judge to issue a TRO to prevent ongoing harmful conduct that later monetary damages after trial are insufficient to remedy .
In other words : " Your Honor , this ca n't wait until the trial is over .
" The standards are high , and courts do not do this this without a very compelling set of alleged facts .
Requesting Plaintiffs are often required to post a significant cash bond to cover damage to the enjoined party in case the TRO is not , in hindsight , the proper pre-trial remedy .
In most cases , a court wo n't issue a TRO without notice to the defendants and a hearing to allow the sought-to-be-enjoined party to response to the Motion for TRO .
In some situations , like this , where mere notice might allow the Defendants to further the harm , the court orders the TRO without notice to the enjoined party .
The Order allows the Plaintiffs to demand third parties to do or stop doing something for the enjoined party - the first notice to them is when they ca n't access bank accounts , or their vendor refuses to cooperate , etc .
The safeguards built into the system are ( 1 ) the cash bond , ( 2 ) a neutral judge that weighs the likelihood of irreversible damage and proof of the initial allegations against the harm from enjoining a party before a verdict , and most importantly , ( 3 ) that these are TEMPORARY .
The judge will order a hearing with BOTH parties within ( usually ) 10 days of the TRO issuance , at which time the Defendants can object , rebut the Plaintiff 's allegations , and ask the court to lift the injunction .
At that point , it is a dispute between two noticed parties before a neutral court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It called a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
In civil court cases, the Plaintiff can ask the judge to issue a TRO to prevent ongoing harmful conduct that later monetary damages after trial are insufficient to remedy.
In other words: "Your Honor, this can't wait until the trial is over.
"  The standards are high, and courts do not do this this without a very compelling set of alleged facts.
Requesting Plaintiffs are often required to post a significant cash bond to cover damage to the enjoined party in case the TRO is not, in hindsight, the proper pre-trial remedy.
In most cases, a court won't issue a TRO without notice to the defendants and a hearing to allow the sought-to-be-enjoined party to response to the Motion for TRO.
In some situations, like this, where mere notice might allow the Defendants to further the harm, the court orders the TRO without notice to the enjoined party.
The Order allows the Plaintiffs to demand third parties to do or stop doing something for the enjoined party - the first notice to them is when they can't access bank accounts, or their vendor refuses to cooperate, etc.
The safeguards built into the system are (1) the cash bond, (2) a neutral judge that weighs the likelihood of irreversible damage and proof of the initial allegations against the harm from enjoining a party before a verdict, and most importantly, (3) that these are TEMPORARY.
The judge will order a hearing with BOTH parties within (usually) 10 days of the TRO issuance, at which time the Defendants can object, rebut the Plaintiff's allegations, and ask the court to lift the injunction.
At that point, it is a dispute between two noticed parties before a neutral court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272846</id>
	<title>Re:One step toward active botnet fighting?</title>
	<author>MooMooFarm</author>
	<datestamp>1267117560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find this to be a great step to fighting botnets legally. More security companies should follow this path and get legal court orders to fight malicious code.
<br> <br>
I find it quite ludicrous that many botnets are well-known as are how they operate their C&amp;C's but the hands of those who can fix it are tied by the laws that are meant to catch these botnet herders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this to be a great step to fighting botnets legally .
More security companies should follow this path and get legal court orders to fight malicious code .
I find it quite ludicrous that many botnets are well-known as are how they operate their C&amp;C 's but the hands of those who can fix it are tied by the laws that are meant to catch these botnet herders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this to be a great step to fighting botnets legally.
More security companies should follow this path and get legal court orders to fight malicious code.
I find it quite ludicrous that many botnets are well-known as are how they operate their C&amp;C's but the hands of those who can fix it are tied by the laws that are meant to catch these botnet herders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271856</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1267111980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In terms of $$$$$$$ obtained, I think the finance bunch have been doing pretty well. And lower risk too. When they supposedly screwed up they still got bonuses.<br><br>All it takes is to not have a conscience or being able to fool yourself that you are actually adding lots more value than you are taking out.<br><br>As the title of one book says: "Where Are the Customers' Yachts? or A Good Hard Look at Wall Street".</htmltext>
<tokenext>In terms of $ $ $ $ $ $ $ obtained , I think the finance bunch have been doing pretty well .
And lower risk too .
When they supposedly screwed up they still got bonuses.All it takes is to not have a conscience or being able to fool yourself that you are actually adding lots more value than you are taking out.As the title of one book says : " Where Are the Customers ' Yachts ?
or A Good Hard Look at Wall Street " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In terms of $$$$$$$ obtained, I think the finance bunch have been doing pretty well.
And lower risk too.
When they supposedly screwed up they still got bonuses.All it takes is to not have a conscience or being able to fool yourself that you are actually adding lots more value than you are taking out.As the title of one book says: "Where Are the Customers' Yachts?
or A Good Hard Look at Wall Street".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272232</id>
	<title>Re:Contingencies</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1267114380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it's easier to make money legally than illegally.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nonsense.  If it really were easier to do good than bad, we wouldn't need laws or 10 commandments or time outs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's easier to make money legally than illegally.Nonsense .
If it really were easier to do good than bad , we would n't need laws or 10 commandments or time outs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's easier to make money legally than illegally.Nonsense.
If it really were easier to do good than bad, we wouldn't need laws or 10 commandments or time outs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271546</id>
	<title>Re:Good work...</title>
	<author>secondhand\_Buddah</author>
	<datestamp>1267110240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Send me your email address. I'm sure I could arrange something..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Send me your email address .
I 'm sure I could arrange something. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Send me your email address.
I'm sure I could arrange something..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31278238</id>
	<title>Re:One step toward active botnet fighting?</title>
	<author>Chapter80</author>
	<datestamp>1267094760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is nice (if reactionary) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting' the target computers with a patch, or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help?</p></div><p>So you're saying that the users should get, say, a pop-up, that says "Your computer may be infected.  Click here to fix the problem."</p><p>Do you see the irony in this plan?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nice ( if reactionary ) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting ' the target computers with a patch , or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help ? So you 're saying that the users should get , say , a pop-up , that says " Your computer may be infected .
Click here to fix the problem .
" Do you see the irony in this plan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nice (if reactionary) but how long before we can get a court order to legally fight the botnet by 'infecting' the target computers with a patch, or at least some sort of message that warns the user to seek help?So you're saying that the users should get, say, a pop-up, that says "Your computer may be infected.
Click here to fix the problem.
"Do you see the irony in this plan?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31278238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31281388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31280496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31275042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31277876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31280374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31278428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_1310259_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272282
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31278428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31277876
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31281388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31278238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271460
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272408
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271856
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272460
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271634
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31276640
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271962
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272448
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271652
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271918
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273098
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31275042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31280374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31271756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31280496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31274344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31273504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31272130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_1310259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_1310259.31275348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
