<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_02_2025237</id>
	<title>Microsoft VP Suggests 'Net Tax To Clean Computers</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267524300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Ian Lamont writes <i>"Microsoft's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing, Scott Charney, speaking at the RSA conference in San Francisco, has <a href="http://www.itworld.com/software/98522/microsofts-charney-suggests-net-tax-clean-computers">floated an interesting proposal to deal with infected computers</a>: Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry, and consider using 'general taxation' to pay for inspection and quarantine. Using taxes to deal with online criminal activity is not a new idea, as demonstrated by <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/05/0535221/Internet-Tax-Approved-By-Louisiana-House">last year's Louisiana House vote</a> to levy a monthly surcharge on Internet access to deal with online baddies."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ian Lamont writes " Microsoft 's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing , Scott Charney , speaking at the RSA conference in San Francisco , has floated an interesting proposal to deal with infected computers : Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry , and consider using 'general taxation ' to pay for inspection and quarantine .
Using taxes to deal with online criminal activity is not a new idea , as demonstrated by last year 's Louisiana House vote to levy a monthly surcharge on Internet access to deal with online baddies .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ian Lamont writes "Microsoft's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing, Scott Charney, speaking at the RSA conference in San Francisco, has floated an interesting proposal to deal with infected computers: Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry, and consider using 'general taxation' to pay for inspection and quarantine.
Using taxes to deal with online criminal activity is not a new idea, as demonstrated by last year's Louisiana House vote to levy a monthly surcharge on Internet access to deal with online baddies.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337346</id>
	<title>There's A Level Of Absurd Gall and Audacity</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1267530900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At which things stop being offensive and start being worthy of a Monty Python sketch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At which things stop being offensive and start being worthy of a Monty Python sketch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At which things stop being offensive and start being worthy of a Monty Python sketch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336918</id>
	<title>Last I Knew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267529460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet was not a basic subsitance... nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet was not a basic subsitance... nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet was not a basic subsitance... nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337254</id>
	<title>Nonono!</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1267530540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Telling politicians they could solve a problem with a tax is like telling a guy with a hammer "Say, that sure looks like a nail over there"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Telling politicians they could solve a problem with a tax is like telling a guy with a hammer " Say , that sure looks like a nail over there "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telling politicians they could solve a problem with a tax is like telling a guy with a hammer "Say, that sure looks like a nail over there"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341286</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Microsoft operating systems</title>
	<author>kainalu</author>
	<datestamp>1267558920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree to this. I have never gotten a virus in the last 7 years, because my software is more secure, and I know how to use it and configure a machine. Why should I pay a tax for the idiots that cant do the same? A levy for known problem software would work better, while not burdening people that don't have the problem. You buy shit software, you pay extra to keep it clean.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree to this .
I have never gotten a virus in the last 7 years , because my software is more secure , and I know how to use it and configure a machine .
Why should I pay a tax for the idiots that cant do the same ?
A levy for known problem software would work better , while not burdening people that do n't have the problem .
You buy shit software , you pay extra to keep it clean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree to this.
I have never gotten a virus in the last 7 years, because my software is more secure, and I know how to use it and configure a machine.
Why should I pay a tax for the idiots that cant do the same?
A levy for known problem software would work better, while not burdening people that don't have the problem.
You buy shit software, you pay extra to keep it clean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338476</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267536060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me just say, FUCK THAT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me just say , FUCK THAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me just say, FUCK THAT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504</id>
	<title>Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267527900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the major ISPs in the US are providing a free brand-name anti-virus product if users will just download it. Even if you don't get that, it's about $15/year to stay up to date at Best Buy. The problem here isn't that people can't afford anti-virus... it's that they can't be bothered to use it.</p><p>Maybe the route some universities have taken of fines and downtime for those caught spreading malware or spam, knowingly or not, is what we need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the major ISPs in the US are providing a free brand-name anti-virus product if users will just download it .
Even if you do n't get that , it 's about $ 15/year to stay up to date at Best Buy .
The problem here is n't that people ca n't afford anti-virus... it 's that they ca n't be bothered to use it.Maybe the route some universities have taken of fines and downtime for those caught spreading malware or spam , knowingly or not , is what we need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the major ISPs in the US are providing a free brand-name anti-virus product if users will just download it.
Even if you don't get that, it's about $15/year to stay up to date at Best Buy.
The problem here isn't that people can't afford anti-virus... it's that they can't be bothered to use it.Maybe the route some universities have taken of fines and downtime for those caught spreading malware or spam, knowingly or not, is what we need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340266</id>
	<title>Get a Mac?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267549320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tax-free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tax-free : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tax-free :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336972</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267529700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is how society works in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is how society works in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is how society works in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338462</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267535940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like anybody in America would know what any of that is like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like anybody in America would know what any of that is like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like anybody in America would know what any of that is like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338236</id>
	<title>because, what we need are more taxes</title>
	<author>bonds</author>
	<datestamp>1267534980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell you what, figure out a way to temporarily fund the government cybercrime squad using general funds.  After 2 years on the job, ask the people who would pay if they support a tax to keep the cybercrime squad around.<br> <br>

If they want my vote, I'm going to need to see some impressive, worthwhile results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell you what , figure out a way to temporarily fund the government cybercrime squad using general funds .
After 2 years on the job , ask the people who would pay if they support a tax to keep the cybercrime squad around .
If they want my vote , I 'm going to need to see some impressive , worthwhile results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell you what, figure out a way to temporarily fund the government cybercrime squad using general funds.
After 2 years on the job, ask the people who would pay if they support a tax to keep the cybercrime squad around.
If they want my vote, I'm going to need to see some impressive, worthwhile results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560</id>
	<title>I totally agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267528140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering 99\% of all infected machines out there in userland are running some Microsoft product;  Microsoft SHOULD be taxed for each and every one of them,  It is fortunate we have such an industry leader as Microsoft, fessing up to their own damn foolishness and offering to make good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering 99 \ % of all infected machines out there in userland are running some Microsoft product ; Microsoft SHOULD be taxed for each and every one of them , It is fortunate we have such an industry leader as Microsoft , fessing up to their own damn foolishness and offering to make good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering 99\% of all infected machines out there in userland are running some Microsoft product;  Microsoft SHOULD be taxed for each and every one of them,  It is fortunate we have such an industry leader as Microsoft, fessing up to their own damn foolishness and offering to make good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339610</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1267543800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So somehow you seem to be stuck in the 2005 era mentality where spyware only comes bundled with other software, and porn sites are the primary way of infecting a machine.<br> <br>

<br> <b>NEWS FLASH</b> <br>
Most infections i see in offices these days involve NO explicitly downloaded files, NO programs having been executed, running Google's Chrome (and I can verify that by checking that history hasnt been tampered with).   The user wasnt viewing porn, or going to shady sites, or viewing warez-- they were browsing news or facebook or yahoo, and some sleezy ad auto-downloaded an infected pdf, which auto-launched and infected the machine.  Often, "least privelege" doesnt even prevent the virus from rooting the whole box-- none of my users have admin or even power-user priveleges.<br> <br>

"<i>Ah, but youre using Adobe's crappy plugin</i>", you exclaim.  Ok, except that there are vulerabilities in Foxit as well, and there is no TECHNICAL reason that could not be used as an attack vector.  If youre not aware, there is currently a vulnerability allowing the F1 key to allow an infection, and several years back a rendering flaw allowed jpeg files to infect your machine.<br> <br>

You have this outdated mentality that only files ending in exe, pif, com, or scr are capable of infecting your machine, and that you have to be visiting shady sites to come across this crap.  And you seem to think that the sites that trick users make it obvious that theyre generated by a browser-- having seen these sites first hand, and tried to instruct users on how to tell the difference, I can tell you that it takes a techie to notice.  Even when using chrome, which uses a non-native interface, the "your computer is infected" popups look IDENTICAL to "My Computer", down to the native skinning (and Im not even sure how that is possible from within chrome).<br> <br>

You also mention "not even opening spam"-- are you aware that within certain versions of outlook (I believe 2003?) some emails can have their payload activated by simply pressing "forward" or "delete" (the reading pane might have to be activated).<br> <br>

There is just a ridiculous amount of misinformation out there about what prevents and what causes viruses-- for example audio CDs cannot cause a virus if you just disable autorun.  Browsing porn with adblock isnt really a layer of protection-- if someone has a hot 0-day exploit that theyre going to plant on a porn site, theyre probably not going to place it in a div labeled "ADs"; adblock is more likely to protect you on sites like yahoo or facebook.  Trusting opensource explicitly is just retarded-- do you actually check out the source and scan it for backdoors?  If someone managed to get some obfuscated attack code inserted into firefox, would you REALLY notice?  What about that neat little opensource utility with a community of about 30?<br> <br>

Your entire post hinges on the premise that<p><div class="quote"><p>I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.</p></div><p>which basically asserts that its "stupid shit" to expect a PDF plugin to be safe, or jpegs to be safe, or deleting spam to be safe, or using audio CDs to be safe.  What planet are you from?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So somehow you seem to be stuck in the 2005 era mentality where spyware only comes bundled with other software , and porn sites are the primary way of infecting a machine .
NEWS FLASH Most infections i see in offices these days involve NO explicitly downloaded files , NO programs having been executed , running Google 's Chrome ( and I can verify that by checking that history hasnt been tampered with ) .
The user wasnt viewing porn , or going to shady sites , or viewing warez-- they were browsing news or facebook or yahoo , and some sleezy ad auto-downloaded an infected pdf , which auto-launched and infected the machine .
Often , " least privelege " doesnt even prevent the virus from rooting the whole box-- none of my users have admin or even power-user priveleges .
" Ah , but youre using Adobe 's crappy plugin " , you exclaim .
Ok , except that there are vulerabilities in Foxit as well , and there is no TECHNICAL reason that could not be used as an attack vector .
If youre not aware , there is currently a vulnerability allowing the F1 key to allow an infection , and several years back a rendering flaw allowed jpeg files to infect your machine .
You have this outdated mentality that only files ending in exe , pif , com , or scr are capable of infecting your machine , and that you have to be visiting shady sites to come across this crap .
And you seem to think that the sites that trick users make it obvious that theyre generated by a browser-- having seen these sites first hand , and tried to instruct users on how to tell the difference , I can tell you that it takes a techie to notice .
Even when using chrome , which uses a non-native interface , the " your computer is infected " popups look IDENTICAL to " My Computer " , down to the native skinning ( and Im not even sure how that is possible from within chrome ) .
You also mention " not even opening spam " -- are you aware that within certain versions of outlook ( I believe 2003 ?
) some emails can have their payload activated by simply pressing " forward " or " delete " ( the reading pane might have to be activated ) .
There is just a ridiculous amount of misinformation out there about what prevents and what causes viruses-- for example audio CDs can not cause a virus if you just disable autorun .
Browsing porn with adblock isnt really a layer of protection-- if someone has a hot 0-day exploit that theyre going to plant on a porn site , theyre probably not going to place it in a div labeled " ADs " ; adblock is more likely to protect you on sites like yahoo or facebook .
Trusting opensource explicitly is just retarded-- do you actually check out the source and scan it for backdoors ?
If someone managed to get some obfuscated attack code inserted into firefox , would you REALLY notice ?
What about that neat little opensource utility with a community of about 30 ?
Your entire post hinges on the premise thatI do n't get viruses because I do n't do stupid shit.which basically asserts that its " stupid shit " to expect a PDF plugin to be safe , or jpegs to be safe , or deleting spam to be safe , or using audio CDs to be safe .
What planet are you from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So somehow you seem to be stuck in the 2005 era mentality where spyware only comes bundled with other software, and porn sites are the primary way of infecting a machine.
NEWS FLASH 
Most infections i see in offices these days involve NO explicitly downloaded files, NO programs having been executed, running Google's Chrome (and I can verify that by checking that history hasnt been tampered with).
The user wasnt viewing porn, or going to shady sites, or viewing warez-- they were browsing news or facebook or yahoo, and some sleezy ad auto-downloaded an infected pdf, which auto-launched and infected the machine.
Often, "least privelege" doesnt even prevent the virus from rooting the whole box-- none of my users have admin or even power-user priveleges.
"Ah, but youre using Adobe's crappy plugin", you exclaim.
Ok, except that there are vulerabilities in Foxit as well, and there is no TECHNICAL reason that could not be used as an attack vector.
If youre not aware, there is currently a vulnerability allowing the F1 key to allow an infection, and several years back a rendering flaw allowed jpeg files to infect your machine.
You have this outdated mentality that only files ending in exe, pif, com, or scr are capable of infecting your machine, and that you have to be visiting shady sites to come across this crap.
And you seem to think that the sites that trick users make it obvious that theyre generated by a browser-- having seen these sites first hand, and tried to instruct users on how to tell the difference, I can tell you that it takes a techie to notice.
Even when using chrome, which uses a non-native interface, the "your computer is infected" popups look IDENTICAL to "My Computer", down to the native skinning (and Im not even sure how that is possible from within chrome).
You also mention "not even opening spam"-- are you aware that within certain versions of outlook (I believe 2003?
) some emails can have their payload activated by simply pressing "forward" or "delete" (the reading pane might have to be activated).
There is just a ridiculous amount of misinformation out there about what prevents and what causes viruses-- for example audio CDs cannot cause a virus if you just disable autorun.
Browsing porn with adblock isnt really a layer of protection-- if someone has a hot 0-day exploit that theyre going to plant on a porn site, theyre probably not going to place it in a div labeled "ADs"; adblock is more likely to protect you on sites like yahoo or facebook.
Trusting opensource explicitly is just retarded-- do you actually check out the source and scan it for backdoors?
If someone managed to get some obfuscated attack code inserted into firefox, would you REALLY notice?
What about that neat little opensource utility with a community of about 30?
Your entire post hinges on the premise thatI don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.which basically asserts that its "stupid shit" to expect a PDF plugin to be safe, or jpegs to be safe, or deleting spam to be safe, or using audio CDs to be safe.
What planet are you from?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339940</id>
	<title>Hells no...</title>
	<author>Therilith</author>
	<datestamp>1267546500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm already paying taxes to save peoples lives after they do stupid, dangerous shit. I'm not paying to fix their computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm already paying taxes to save peoples lives after they do stupid , dangerous shit .
I 'm not paying to fix their computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm already paying taxes to save peoples lives after they do stupid, dangerous shit.
I'm not paying to fix their computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340066</id>
	<title>Seriously?  Apply a healthcare model?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267547700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only a Microsoft exec could imagine that a general tax (raising the cost of ownership for Mac and Linux users) can solve a largely Windows-related issue.</p><p>Only a Microsoft exec could suggest a healthcare model for addressing fundamental design issues in his employer's products in the same month that Wellpoint tries to raise health insurance premiums forty percent.</p><p>And don't get me started about big Pharma and our spineless representatives in Congress.</p><p>
&nbsp; A healthcare model is the last thing we need for dealing with criminals who exploit insecure software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a Microsoft exec could imagine that a general tax ( raising the cost of ownership for Mac and Linux users ) can solve a largely Windows-related issue.Only a Microsoft exec could suggest a healthcare model for addressing fundamental design issues in his employer 's products in the same month that Wellpoint tries to raise health insurance premiums forty percent.And do n't get me started about big Pharma and our spineless representatives in Congress .
  A healthcare model is the last thing we need for dealing with criminals who exploit insecure software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only a Microsoft exec could imagine that a general tax (raising the cost of ownership for Mac and Linux users) can solve a largely Windows-related issue.Only a Microsoft exec could suggest a healthcare model for addressing fundamental design issues in his employer's products in the same month that Wellpoint tries to raise health insurance premiums forty percent.And don't get me started about big Pharma and our spineless representatives in Congress.
  A healthcare model is the last thing we need for dealing with criminals who exploit insecure software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336996</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267529760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they get arrested since only terrorists wouldn't use Windows..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they get arrested since only terrorists would n't use Windows. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they get arrested since only terrorists wouldn't use Windows..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337654</id>
	<title>Tax the polluter, not the end consumer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267532340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a better idea--just as we tax gross polluters for the privilege to dump their industrial/agricultural byproduct, how about we tax Microsoft for their product's pollution of the internet?  They bought market share by pushing insecure OSes to the masses, and so far have gotten others to absorb the displaced cost of computer ownage and botnets.  Seriously--there are billions spent every year on cleaning and reinstalling infected windows PCs, and the botnets cause major economic damage to the attacked parties.  Microsoft should pick up the cost of cleaning up their mess--we could even do a cap and trade where non-polluting OS installs can sell their "pollution" quota back to Microsoft.
<br> <br>
Yeah, this'll happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a better idea--just as we tax gross polluters for the privilege to dump their industrial/agricultural byproduct , how about we tax Microsoft for their product 's pollution of the internet ?
They bought market share by pushing insecure OSes to the masses , and so far have gotten others to absorb the displaced cost of computer ownage and botnets .
Seriously--there are billions spent every year on cleaning and reinstalling infected windows PCs , and the botnets cause major economic damage to the attacked parties .
Microsoft should pick up the cost of cleaning up their mess--we could even do a cap and trade where non-polluting OS installs can sell their " pollution " quota back to Microsoft .
Yeah , this 'll happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a better idea--just as we tax gross polluters for the privilege to dump their industrial/agricultural byproduct, how about we tax Microsoft for their product's pollution of the internet?
They bought market share by pushing insecure OSes to the masses, and so far have gotten others to absorb the displaced cost of computer ownage and botnets.
Seriously--there are billions spent every year on cleaning and reinstalling infected windows PCs, and the botnets cause major economic damage to the attacked parties.
Microsoft should pick up the cost of cleaning up their mess--we could even do a cap and trade where non-polluting OS installs can sell their "pollution" quota back to Microsoft.
Yeah, this'll happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31348092</id>
	<title>Building a Strawman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267642920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of these problems are caused by poor network administration, and others are cause by slow response time to fix identified security issues. It's difficult to argue that public funds should be used because some businesses can't administer their networks properly, or that some software manufacturers don't respond quickly enough to identified security issues with their products. Using public funds would essentially pay these people, who are not doing their best, to fix their problems.</p><p>I think this is a small argument that, if won, would build a good foundation for similar proposals for public funds; such as copyright infringement and software piracy.</p><p>I believe we've always spent public funds to police areas like illegal drugs because of all the criminal activity around them (murder, assault, etc.) and doing so protects the public.</p><p>Government funded enforcement of copyright infringement and software piracy only protects companies' business models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of these problems are caused by poor network administration , and others are cause by slow response time to fix identified security issues .
It 's difficult to argue that public funds should be used because some businesses ca n't administer their networks properly , or that some software manufacturers do n't respond quickly enough to identified security issues with their products .
Using public funds would essentially pay these people , who are not doing their best , to fix their problems.I think this is a small argument that , if won , would build a good foundation for similar proposals for public funds ; such as copyright infringement and software piracy.I believe we 've always spent public funds to police areas like illegal drugs because of all the criminal activity around them ( murder , assault , etc .
) and doing so protects the public.Government funded enforcement of copyright infringement and software piracy only protects companies ' business models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of these problems are caused by poor network administration, and others are cause by slow response time to fix identified security issues.
It's difficult to argue that public funds should be used because some businesses can't administer their networks properly, or that some software manufacturers don't respond quickly enough to identified security issues with their products.
Using public funds would essentially pay these people, who are not doing their best, to fix their problems.I think this is a small argument that, if won, would build a good foundation for similar proposals for public funds; such as copyright infringement and software piracy.I believe we've always spent public funds to police areas like illegal drugs because of all the criminal activity around them (murder, assault, etc.
) and doing so protects the public.Government funded enforcement of copyright infringement and software piracy only protects companies' business models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339634</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1267543920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The MOST common attack vector out there (ad-injected PDFs) will work in the most up to date chrome with noscript installed and running as a non-priveleged user.  Not to mention, have fun teaching a financial controller how to use noscript.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The MOST common attack vector out there ( ad-injected PDFs ) will work in the most up to date chrome with noscript installed and running as a non-priveleged user .
Not to mention , have fun teaching a financial controller how to use noscript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MOST common attack vector out there (ad-injected PDFs) will work in the most up to date chrome with noscript installed and running as a non-priveleged user.
Not to mention, have fun teaching a financial controller how to use noscript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342190</id>
	<title>Re:I see how this works</title>
	<author>darien</author>
	<datestamp>1267609800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows has around a 90\% market share. If 90\% of the shops in town were being regularly broken into, you can bet there'd be public action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows has around a 90 \ % market share .
If 90 \ % of the shops in town were being regularly broken into , you can bet there 'd be public action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows has around a 90\% market share.
If 90\% of the shops in town were being regularly broken into, you can bet there'd be public action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338400</id>
	<title>How about a 'Click the Dancing Monkey' tax?</title>
	<author>sizzzzlerz</author>
	<datestamp>1267535640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who do that sort of thing are most likely people who don't know enough to keep their computer patched and are far more susceptible to viruses and other bad stuff. I propose that a record be kept for every time a user does something like that and a tax be imposed based on number of occurrences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who do that sort of thing are most likely people who do n't know enough to keep their computer patched and are far more susceptible to viruses and other bad stuff .
I propose that a record be kept for every time a user does something like that and a tax be imposed based on number of occurrences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who do that sort of thing are most likely people who don't know enough to keep their computer patched and are far more susceptible to viruses and other bad stuff.
I propose that a record be kept for every time a user does something like that and a tax be imposed based on number of occurrences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1267530780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've tried to fight this fight.  People don't get it.  Oh, people here will -- though a disturbing number insist that antivirus is required -- but the populace at large won't ever understand what you've laid out above. I've given up on figuring out why. The rules are simple: 1) Don't use IE.  [sorry, I know it can be safe, but this is way easier than trying to explain when/where/how it's safe]  2) don't install software unless it's from a trusted source.  Your friends are not trusted sources.  Nor are the links that they forward. Neither is twitter.  3) use a web-based email that does not download images by default -- minimally don't use Outlook/Outlook Express.  4) noscript is probably a good idea.
<p>
I've been virus free for decades now, following these basic rules, and without running A/V save a monthly offline Clam scan to make sure I haven't caught a case of the stupids when I wasn't looking.
</p><p>
I'd rather see ISPs voluntarily cracking down on spam-generating machines than be forced to pay a tax in an attempt to make up for my neighbor*'s ignorance.
</p><p>
*For extremely large values of "neighbor".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tried to fight this fight .
People do n't get it .
Oh , people here will -- though a disturbing number insist that antivirus is required -- but the populace at large wo n't ever understand what you 've laid out above .
I 've given up on figuring out why .
The rules are simple : 1 ) Do n't use IE .
[ sorry , I know it can be safe , but this is way easier than trying to explain when/where/how it 's safe ] 2 ) do n't install software unless it 's from a trusted source .
Your friends are not trusted sources .
Nor are the links that they forward .
Neither is twitter .
3 ) use a web-based email that does not download images by default -- minimally do n't use Outlook/Outlook Express .
4 ) noscript is probably a good idea .
I 've been virus free for decades now , following these basic rules , and without running A/V save a monthly offline Clam scan to make sure I have n't caught a case of the stupids when I was n't looking .
I 'd rather see ISPs voluntarily cracking down on spam-generating machines than be forced to pay a tax in an attempt to make up for my neighbor * 's ignorance .
* For extremely large values of " neighbor " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tried to fight this fight.
People don't get it.
Oh, people here will -- though a disturbing number insist that antivirus is required -- but the populace at large won't ever understand what you've laid out above.
I've given up on figuring out why.
The rules are simple: 1) Don't use IE.
[sorry, I know it can be safe, but this is way easier than trying to explain when/where/how it's safe]  2) don't install software unless it's from a trusted source.
Your friends are not trusted sources.
Nor are the links that they forward.
Neither is twitter.
3) use a web-based email that does not download images by default -- minimally don't use Outlook/Outlook Express.
4) noscript is probably a good idea.
I've been virus free for decades now, following these basic rules, and without running A/V save a monthly offline Clam scan to make sure I haven't caught a case of the stupids when I wasn't looking.
I'd rather see ISPs voluntarily cracking down on spam-generating machines than be forced to pay a tax in an attempt to make up for my neighbor*'s ignorance.
*For extremely large values of "neighbor".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337678</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267532460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...oooorrrrr you could just use an AV app (assuming you're box is no more than 8 years old).<br>Even using your crude exclusion method, there are plenty of ways your computer could still become infected.<br>Hey genius, I have a great idea for you...just turn your computer off--that will ensure you will NEVER get any malware!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...oooorrrrr you could just use an AV app ( assuming you 're box is no more than 8 years old ) .Even using your crude exclusion method , there are plenty of ways your computer could still become infected.Hey genius , I have a great idea for you...just turn your computer off--that will ensure you will NEVER get any malware !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...oooorrrrr you could just use an AV app (assuming you're box is no more than 8 years old).Even using your crude exclusion method, there are plenty of ways your computer could still become infected.Hey genius, I have a great idea for you...just turn your computer off--that will ensure you will NEVER get any malware!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339180</id>
	<title>Most rediculous thing I've ever heard</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1267540080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft wants us to pay (even though we aren't infected) for everyone else that is infected via a tax on internet use to make up for defects in their products which caused this mess to begin with?  And how on earth (as it will do nothing but funnel money) is this supposed to help alleviate the problem?  And isn't this proposition by the company responsible for the problem to begin with inviting a declaration of Microsoft being a utility and hence being regulated by the government?</p><p>Who in this living Universe is supposed to take Microsoft seriously after comments like this?  Maybe the ISPs will enjoy the tax as it will funnel money to them to do what they are already doing, while granting them higher profits?  Ultimately what the ISPs do is dump the subscriber into the local community to have their machines cleaned.</p><p>And why propose this unless you are trying to kill the likes of some of your competitors that rely on sales of anti-virus products to maintain revenue to stay in the competitive fight against the company that created this to begin with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft wants us to pay ( even though we are n't infected ) for everyone else that is infected via a tax on internet use to make up for defects in their products which caused this mess to begin with ?
And how on earth ( as it will do nothing but funnel money ) is this supposed to help alleviate the problem ?
And is n't this proposition by the company responsible for the problem to begin with inviting a declaration of Microsoft being a utility and hence being regulated by the government ? Who in this living Universe is supposed to take Microsoft seriously after comments like this ?
Maybe the ISPs will enjoy the tax as it will funnel money to them to do what they are already doing , while granting them higher profits ?
Ultimately what the ISPs do is dump the subscriber into the local community to have their machines cleaned.And why propose this unless you are trying to kill the likes of some of your competitors that rely on sales of anti-virus products to maintain revenue to stay in the competitive fight against the company that created this to begin with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft wants us to pay (even though we aren't infected) for everyone else that is infected via a tax on internet use to make up for defects in their products which caused this mess to begin with?
And how on earth (as it will do nothing but funnel money) is this supposed to help alleviate the problem?
And isn't this proposition by the company responsible for the problem to begin with inviting a declaration of Microsoft being a utility and hence being regulated by the government?Who in this living Universe is supposed to take Microsoft seriously after comments like this?
Maybe the ISPs will enjoy the tax as it will funnel money to them to do what they are already doing, while granting them higher profits?
Ultimately what the ISPs do is dump the subscriber into the local community to have their machines cleaned.And why propose this unless you are trying to kill the likes of some of your competitors that rely on sales of anti-virus products to maintain revenue to stay in the competitive fight against the company that created this to begin with?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338732</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1267537140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not just not use Microsoft products, that way you can avoid the tax twice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just not use Microsoft products , that way you can avoid the tax twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just not use Microsoft products, that way you can avoid the tax twice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337134</id>
	<title>Taxes? Get the banks to pay for it!</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1267530180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The banks have all our tax money. How about the banks are made to pay for virus cleanup?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The banks have all our tax money .
How about the banks are made to pay for virus cleanup ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The banks have all our tax money.
How about the banks are made to pay for virus cleanup?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339544</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1267543260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because he used sarcasm doesn't make him a troll.  Bad mod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because he used sarcasm does n't make him a troll .
Bad mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because he used sarcasm doesn't make him a troll.
Bad mod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341060</id>
	<title>How about we fix the problem instead of taxing it?</title>
	<author>ka9dgx</author>
	<datestamp>1267556760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's just get a secure OS based on the capability object model into the hands of the masses, so we can fix the problem at it's source!</p><p>Make it possible for users to decide what capabilities a program is allowed to have before its run... they will actually make good choices if they have good tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's just get a secure OS based on the capability object model into the hands of the masses , so we can fix the problem at it 's source ! Make it possible for users to decide what capabilities a program is allowed to have before its run... they will actually make good choices if they have good tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's just get a secure OS based on the capability object model into the hands of the masses, so we can fix the problem at it's source!Make it possible for users to decide what capabilities a program is allowed to have before its run... they will actually make good choices if they have good tools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337226</id>
	<title>Speaking for all OS X users:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267530480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking for all OS X users: Microsoft, go eat a dick. Howsabout we just tack $30 onto every Windows license to clean up *your* security problems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking for all OS X users : Microsoft , go eat a dick .
Howsabout we just tack $ 30 onto every Windows license to clean up * your * security problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking for all OS X users: Microsoft, go eat a dick.
Howsabout we just tack $30 onto every Windows license to clean up *your* security problems?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337556</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1267531860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot one.</p><p>You sit behind a hardware firewall (router) which blocks any unrequested connections.</p><p>The CD rootkit thing can be fixed by entirely disabling Autorun in the registry.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Cdrom</p></div><p>Set <b>AutoRun</b> DWORD to 0</p><p>Now nothing will be executed when you plunk a CD in. The CD may not even spin up, until you try to access it. It also changes the default action to opening the folder.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot one.You sit behind a hardware firewall ( router ) which blocks any unrequested connections.The CD rootkit thing can be fixed by entirely disabling Autorun in the registry.HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE \ SYSTEM \ CurrentControlSet \ Services \ CdromSet AutoRun DWORD to 0Now nothing will be executed when you plunk a CD in .
The CD may not even spin up , until you try to access it .
It also changes the default action to opening the folder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot one.You sit behind a hardware firewall (router) which blocks any unrequested connections.The CD rootkit thing can be fixed by entirely disabling Autorun in the registry.HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\CdromSet AutoRun DWORD to 0Now nothing will be executed when you plunk a CD in.
The CD may not even spin up, until you try to access it.
It also changes the default action to opening the folder.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336948</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267529580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that the proposed tax will just be passed along to the consumer, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that the proposed tax will just be passed along to the consumer , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that the proposed tax will just be passed along to the consumer, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31343100</id>
	<title>Sounds GREAT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267617780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as MICROSOFT is the one who pays it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as MICROSOFT is the one who pays it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as MICROSOFT is the one who pays it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337076</id>
	<title>A disk, not a tax...</title>
	<author>Peter Simpson</author>
	<datestamp>1267530000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people received a Windows install disk with their computer, they would be able to wipe and re-install the OS whenever it got too crudded up.</p><p>Windows is full of security holes. Including free anti-virus (Windows Security Essentials), instead of making it a download, and making it harder to<br>install malware without a user's knowledge, would go along way towards fixing a completely preventable problem.</p><p>Windows' susceptibility to malware is solely Microsoft's fault, and well within their ability to remedy.  *They* should be paying the tax, not their customers.</p><p>Apple's OS X, Linux, BSD and Solaris seem not to have this huge malware problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people received a Windows install disk with their computer , they would be able to wipe and re-install the OS whenever it got too crudded up.Windows is full of security holes .
Including free anti-virus ( Windows Security Essentials ) , instead of making it a download , and making it harder toinstall malware without a user 's knowledge , would go along way towards fixing a completely preventable problem.Windows ' susceptibility to malware is solely Microsoft 's fault , and well within their ability to remedy .
* They * should be paying the tax , not their customers.Apple 's OS X , Linux , BSD and Solaris seem not to have this huge malware problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people received a Windows install disk with their computer, they would be able to wipe and re-install the OS whenever it got too crudded up.Windows is full of security holes.
Including free anti-virus (Windows Security Essentials), instead of making it a download, and making it harder toinstall malware without a user's knowledge, would go along way towards fixing a completely preventable problem.Windows' susceptibility to malware is solely Microsoft's fault, and well within their ability to remedy.
*They* should be paying the tax, not their customers.Apple's OS X, Linux, BSD and Solaris seem not to have this huge malware problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31348906</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Rizzen</author>
	<datestamp>1267646940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's not forget the real heart of this matter here.   What Microsoft wants is a tax for them to fix the problems in their software which....<br>
<br>
<strong>SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not forget the real heart of this matter here .
What Microsoft wants is a tax for them to fix the problems in their software which... . SHOULD N'T HAVE BEEN IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not forget the real heart of this matter here.
What Microsoft wants is a tax for them to fix the problems in their software which....

SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336920</id>
	<title>Why am I not surprised?</title>
	<author>hotcorrado169</author>
	<datestamp>1267529460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft would.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft would.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338420</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267535760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other big question needing answering is whether tech get a cut of the tax proceeds for cleaning systems, because if so, I am all for the taxing Windows machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other big question needing answering is whether tech get a cut of the tax proceeds for cleaning systems , because if so , I am all for the taxing Windows machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other big question needing answering is whether tech get a cut of the tax proceeds for cleaning systems, because if so, I am all for the taxing Windows machines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338176</id>
	<title>Alternatives to the tax:</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1267534680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li> Tax Microsoft instead of the users.  If Microsoft had a better architecture for Windows and did not strive for "features over security", then Windows would be far less vulnerable.</li>
<li> Tax those who exploit the security issues.</li>
<li> Make those users whose computers have been infected pay to clean the computer and pay attend a mandatory class on good computer hygiene.</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tax Microsoft instead of the users .
If Microsoft had a better architecture for Windows and did not strive for " features over security " , then Windows would be far less vulnerable .
Tax those who exploit the security issues .
Make those users whose computers have been infected pay to clean the computer and pay attend a mandatory class on good computer hygiene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 Tax Microsoft instead of the users.
If Microsoft had a better architecture for Windows and did not strive for "features over security", then Windows would be far less vulnerable.
Tax those who exploit the security issues.
Make those users whose computers have been infected pay to clean the computer and pay attend a mandatory class on good computer hygiene.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336954</id>
	<title>I don't run anti-virus</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1267529640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, I admit it's mostly an experiment for me to see what happens, but I also took offense to the endless popups from the McAfee software that was installed on my netbook when I purchased it.</p><p> I don't tend to read email on the machine so it's not too susceptable to a bad attachment. I do download OSS goodies like Gimp, but I tend to only get them from places I trust, like sourceforge. I do use windows update. So I'll find out in a year or so if I really should have used the anti-virus. I suspect that the machine is faster without it and quite frankly I don't think I felt that using it removed all risk from malware.</p><p> I operate the PC from behind a firewall so right now I suspect the biggest threat is from infected usb thumb drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I admit it 's mostly an experiment for me to see what happens , but I also took offense to the endless popups from the McAfee software that was installed on my netbook when I purchased it .
I do n't tend to read email on the machine so it 's not too susceptable to a bad attachment .
I do download OSS goodies like Gimp , but I tend to only get them from places I trust , like sourceforge .
I do use windows update .
So I 'll find out in a year or so if I really should have used the anti-virus .
I suspect that the machine is faster without it and quite frankly I do n't think I felt that using it removed all risk from malware .
I operate the PC from behind a firewall so right now I suspect the biggest threat is from infected usb thumb drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I admit it's mostly an experiment for me to see what happens, but I also took offense to the endless popups from the McAfee software that was installed on my netbook when I purchased it.
I don't tend to read email on the machine so it's not too susceptable to a bad attachment.
I do download OSS goodies like Gimp, but I tend to only get them from places I trust, like sourceforge.
I do use windows update.
So I'll find out in a year or so if I really should have used the anti-virus.
I suspect that the machine is faster without it and quite frankly I don't think I felt that using it removed all risk from malware.
I operate the PC from behind a firewall so right now I suspect the biggest threat is from infected usb thumb drives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336808</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are you surprised?  Those of us that work hard and succeed are taxed more to pay for the lazy, those of us who pay our medical bills are paying for those that receive ER care for free, and my property taxes are paying for a failed school system that I wouldn't let my kid set foot in.

It was only a matter of time before somebody figured out a politically sell-able way to tax those that are ignorant about security online.  Just wait, I would bet my right testicle that eventually there would be an add-on that helps compensate companies for lost "revenue" due to piracy which would require a slight rise in the "online safety" tax..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you surprised ?
Those of us that work hard and succeed are taxed more to pay for the lazy , those of us who pay our medical bills are paying for those that receive ER care for free , and my property taxes are paying for a failed school system that I would n't let my kid set foot in .
It was only a matter of time before somebody figured out a politically sell-able way to tax those that are ignorant about security online .
Just wait , I would bet my right testicle that eventually there would be an add-on that helps compensate companies for lost " revenue " due to piracy which would require a slight rise in the " online safety " tax. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you surprised?
Those of us that work hard and succeed are taxed more to pay for the lazy, those of us who pay our medical bills are paying for those that receive ER care for free, and my property taxes are paying for a failed school system that I wouldn't let my kid set foot in.
It was only a matter of time before somebody figured out a politically sell-able way to tax those that are ignorant about security online.
Just wait, I would bet my right testicle that eventually there would be an add-on that helps compensate companies for lost "revenue" due to piracy which would require a slight rise in the "online safety" tax..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339830</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267545420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also have never used A/V, and never will, because the cure is worse than the disease.  Unfortunately, I work w/ a bunch of folks who are technically illiterate (would you hire someone who can't read or write?).  So A/V is mandatory for most folks.  Every time I sit down at one of these machines I am amazed at how atrociously slow it is.  All the scan options are turned on, all the heuristic scanning is turned on.  I think 99\% of the computer cycles are devoted to detecting viruses.  What a complete waste of a computer.  Most IT problems are not computer problems, they are human resource problems.  Here's my solution: if your computer repeatedly gets infected, you are fired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also have never used A/V , and never will , because the cure is worse than the disease .
Unfortunately , I work w/ a bunch of folks who are technically illiterate ( would you hire someone who ca n't read or write ? ) .
So A/V is mandatory for most folks .
Every time I sit down at one of these machines I am amazed at how atrociously slow it is .
All the scan options are turned on , all the heuristic scanning is turned on .
I think 99 \ % of the computer cycles are devoted to detecting viruses .
What a complete waste of a computer .
Most IT problems are not computer problems , they are human resource problems .
Here 's my solution : if your computer repeatedly gets infected , you are fired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also have never used A/V, and never will, because the cure is worse than the disease.
Unfortunately, I work w/ a bunch of folks who are technically illiterate (would you hire someone who can't read or write?).
So A/V is mandatory for most folks.
Every time I sit down at one of these machines I am amazed at how atrociously slow it is.
All the scan options are turned on, all the heuristic scanning is turned on.
I think 99\% of the computer cycles are devoted to detecting viruses.
What a complete waste of a computer.
Most IT problems are not computer problems, they are human resource problems.
Here's my solution: if your computer repeatedly gets infected, you are fired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338366</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Maltheus</author>
	<datestamp>1267535520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which educated and healthy society were you referring to? I'd like to move there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which educated and healthy society were you referring to ?
I 'd like to move there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which educated and healthy society were you referring to?
I'd like to move there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31343318</id>
	<title>Super Idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267619940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ian Lamont says it's an interesting proposal? He's the super idiot of the day. I didn't know people could be that stupid. Wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ian Lamont says it 's an interesting proposal ?
He 's the super idiot of the day .
I did n't know people could be that stupid .
Wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ian Lamont says it's an interesting proposal?
He's the super idiot of the day.
I didn't know people could be that stupid.
Wow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339400</id>
	<title>A greater concern...</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1267541760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... is that Microsoft can actually get away saying this, and lawmakers don't see the falsehood, let alone immediatley laugh it off.
<br> <br>
The viruses, malware and to a large extent the cyber criminal underworld is exclusively a problem of the Microsoft software ecosystem, and Microsoft's top brass suggests and internet tax to deal with affected computers.
<br> <br>
(well not quite exclusively but good enough for all practical purposes)</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is that Microsoft can actually get away saying this , and lawmakers do n't see the falsehood , let alone immediatley laugh it off .
The viruses , malware and to a large extent the cyber criminal underworld is exclusively a problem of the Microsoft software ecosystem , and Microsoft 's top brass suggests and internet tax to deal with affected computers .
( well not quite exclusively but good enough for all practical purposes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is that Microsoft can actually get away saying this, and lawmakers don't see the falsehood, let alone immediatley laugh it off.
The viruses, malware and to a large extent the cyber criminal underworld is exclusively a problem of the Microsoft software ecosystem, and Microsoft's top brass suggests and internet tax to deal with affected computers.
(well not quite exclusively but good enough for all practical purposes)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338520</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267536240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think in drugs. There are a lot of drug addicts with withdrawal symptoms making trouble around, so you tax everyone to buy them new doses to keep them quiet for a few days. Of course, the ones giving that doses will have their daily profit that way, so is a good business, while fixing the problem is not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think in drugs .
There are a lot of drug addicts with withdrawal symptoms making trouble around , so you tax everyone to buy them new doses to keep them quiet for a few days .
Of course , the ones giving that doses will have their daily profit that way , so is a good business , while fixing the problem is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think in drugs.
There are a lot of drug addicts with withdrawal symptoms making trouble around, so you tax everyone to buy them new doses to keep them quiet for a few days.
Of course, the ones giving that doses will have their daily profit that way, so is a good business, while fixing the problem is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337336</id>
	<title>MS can pay to fix their own problems</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1267530840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless the tax is used to remove Windows and replace it with Linux there is no way I'd ever accept something like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless the tax is used to remove Windows and replace it with Linux there is no way I 'd ever accept something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless the tax is used to remove Windows and replace it with Linux there is no way I'd ever accept something like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337692</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>exomondo</author>
	<datestamp>1267532520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would that be any different from the way it is now? They aren't cleaning YOUR computer, they are fixing up the mess your actions caused, which is what they currently do now anyway.</p><p>So no, it wouldn't lead to any increase, but i do agree that being taxed just because of the incompetence of other users is bullshit, just like the many other cases in which that occurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would that be any different from the way it is now ?
They are n't cleaning YOUR computer , they are fixing up the mess your actions caused , which is what they currently do now anyway.So no , it would n't lead to any increase , but i do agree that being taxed just because of the incompetence of other users is bullshit , just like the many other cases in which that occurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would that be any different from the way it is now?
They aren't cleaning YOUR computer, they are fixing up the mess your actions caused, which is what they currently do now anyway.So no, it wouldn't lead to any increase, but i do agree that being taxed just because of the incompetence of other users is bullshit, just like the many other cases in which that occurs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336714</id>
	<title>I see how this works</title>
	<author>SoTerrified</author>
	<datestamp>1267528740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Police: "This is a fine store you have here"</p><p>Shop Owner: "Yes, I'm quite proud of it."</p><p>P: "It would be a shame if something happened to your store... But for only 20\% of your gross, we could protect it."</p><p>SO: "But, I have no crime in my store.  I have state of the art security cameras, proximity alarms, private security guards.  I've spared no expense and made sure my store is secure"</p><p>P: "True, but you see there's another shop down the street and it gets broken into every week.  Someone has to pay for that."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Police : " This is a fine store you have here " Shop Owner : " Yes , I 'm quite proud of it .
" P : " It would be a shame if something happened to your store... But for only 20 \ % of your gross , we could protect it .
" SO : " But , I have no crime in my store .
I have state of the art security cameras , proximity alarms , private security guards .
I 've spared no expense and made sure my store is secure " P : " True , but you see there 's another shop down the street and it gets broken into every week .
Someone has to pay for that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police: "This is a fine store you have here"Shop Owner: "Yes, I'm quite proud of it.
"P: "It would be a shame if something happened to your store... But for only 20\% of your gross, we could protect it.
"SO: "But, I have no crime in my store.
I have state of the art security cameras, proximity alarms, private security guards.
I've spared no expense and made sure my store is secure"P: "True, but you see there's another shop down the street and it gets broken into every week.
Someone has to pay for that.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338090</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267534260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who do not buy cars or allow their cars on public roads (not entirely sure about the second one) do not pay registration.  Vehicle registration is a tax that is limited to those who use public roads.  If you tax everyone, including those who do not contribute to the problem, there is no incentive to reduce the problem.  If you can save money on taxes by using an operating system for which there is no malware in wide circulation, you can encourage people to consider alternatives that help reduce the overall problem.</p><p>Such a tax essentially boils down to a punishment.  We have a problem, nobody has put effort towards solving it so we are going to institute a tax to pay for a governmen run solution.  The implication being that if people had bothered to make sure their computers were clean from malware there would be no reason to consider such a tax.  Since it can easily be viewed as a punishment, and certainly cannot be shown to contradict the criteria for a punishment, why should those that aren't part of the problem be punished?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who do not buy cars or allow their cars on public roads ( not entirely sure about the second one ) do not pay registration .
Vehicle registration is a tax that is limited to those who use public roads .
If you tax everyone , including those who do not contribute to the problem , there is no incentive to reduce the problem .
If you can save money on taxes by using an operating system for which there is no malware in wide circulation , you can encourage people to consider alternatives that help reduce the overall problem.Such a tax essentially boils down to a punishment .
We have a problem , nobody has put effort towards solving it so we are going to institute a tax to pay for a governmen run solution .
The implication being that if people had bothered to make sure their computers were clean from malware there would be no reason to consider such a tax .
Since it can easily be viewed as a punishment , and certainly can not be shown to contradict the criteria for a punishment , why should those that are n't part of the problem be punished ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who do not buy cars or allow their cars on public roads (not entirely sure about the second one) do not pay registration.
Vehicle registration is a tax that is limited to those who use public roads.
If you tax everyone, including those who do not contribute to the problem, there is no incentive to reduce the problem.
If you can save money on taxes by using an operating system for which there is no malware in wide circulation, you can encourage people to consider alternatives that help reduce the overall problem.Such a tax essentially boils down to a punishment.
We have a problem, nobody has put effort towards solving it so we are going to institute a tax to pay for a governmen run solution.
The implication being that if people had bothered to make sure their computers were clean from malware there would be no reason to consider such a tax.
Since it can easily be viewed as a punishment, and certainly cannot be shown to contradict the criteria for a punishment, why should those that aren't part of the problem be punished?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31345580</id>
	<title>Re:So long as I get a tax credit</title>
	<author>bobs666</author>
	<datestamp>1267632060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should Mac or Linux users get a tax credit? Better yet this should be a Microsoft payed tax. Payed directly by Microsoft. This save the tax payers the cost of collection from the general clue less public. And you might as well bill Microsoft directly for all the systems in the fielded to date.
<br> <br>
Note: by clue less public, I mean that we are not empowered to fix the problems, And that the public does not understand that this should be the norm.
<br> <br>
I mean there is no source code and no environment for code maintenance/instllation provided.  It the clue less that
think binary software has any "soft" left.   You might as well
call it trashware.
<br> <br>
How can someone even call this a computer, It more a "Virus Hive" or at best a "Toaster". Its designed to sell you more software. Just like a Toaster is designed to sell you bread. Is Microsoft box all that useful without more software?  It can't even make toast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should Mac or Linux users get a tax credit ?
Better yet this should be a Microsoft payed tax .
Payed directly by Microsoft .
This save the tax payers the cost of collection from the general clue less public .
And you might as well bill Microsoft directly for all the systems in the fielded to date .
Note : by clue less public , I mean that we are not empowered to fix the problems , And that the public does not understand that this should be the norm .
I mean there is no source code and no environment for code maintenance/instllation provided .
It the clue less that think binary software has any " soft " left .
You might as well call it trashware .
How can someone even call this a computer , It more a " Virus Hive " or at best a " Toaster " .
Its designed to sell you more software .
Just like a Toaster is designed to sell you bread .
Is Microsoft box all that useful without more software ?
It ca n't even make toast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should Mac or Linux users get a tax credit?
Better yet this should be a Microsoft payed tax.
Payed directly by Microsoft.
This save the tax payers the cost of collection from the general clue less public.
And you might as well bill Microsoft directly for all the systems in the fielded to date.
Note: by clue less public, I mean that we are not empowered to fix the problems, And that the public does not understand that this should be the norm.
I mean there is no source code and no environment for code maintenance/instllation provided.
It the clue less that
think binary software has any "soft" left.
You might as well
call it trashware.
How can someone even call this a computer, It more a "Virus Hive" or at best a "Toaster".
Its designed to sell you more software.
Just like a Toaster is designed to sell you bread.
Is Microsoft box all that useful without more software?
It can't even make toast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338808</id>
	<title>A better way...</title>
	<author>bgspence</author>
	<datestamp>1267537620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it should be structured like a smog test. You need to get checked to renew your right to run your machine down the Information Superhighway.</p><p>And there should be fines for illegal acts. Make the offenders pay, big-time. Bust any botnet gang members. Punish littering offenses like spamming or reckless driving for using a browser like IE.</p><p>Too many points and off to Driver's School for reeducation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it should be structured like a smog test .
You need to get checked to renew your right to run your machine down the Information Superhighway.And there should be fines for illegal acts .
Make the offenders pay , big-time .
Bust any botnet gang members .
Punish littering offenses like spamming or reckless driving for using a browser like IE.Too many points and off to Driver 's School for reeducation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it should be structured like a smog test.
You need to get checked to renew your right to run your machine down the Information Superhighway.And there should be fines for illegal acts.
Make the offenders pay, big-time.
Bust any botnet gang members.
Punish littering offenses like spamming or reckless driving for using a browser like IE.Too many points and off to Driver's School for reeducation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31347958</id>
	<title>Instead of Taxes, Fines</title>
	<author>tarlss</author>
	<datestamp>1267642320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about fining people that have malware/viruses on their computer and spread it to others?

This is easy enough to track via ISP and IP addresses. How about fining companies that create these vulnerabilities in the first place that detriment all of us? How about fining companies that install rootkits and other undesirable DRM that breaks computer functionality in the name of "Security"?

Toyota gets a penalty for unsafe accelerators, MS should get a penalty for insecure web browsers and OSes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about fining people that have malware/viruses on their computer and spread it to others ?
This is easy enough to track via ISP and IP addresses .
How about fining companies that create these vulnerabilities in the first place that detriment all of us ?
How about fining companies that install rootkits and other undesirable DRM that breaks computer functionality in the name of " Security " ?
Toyota gets a penalty for unsafe accelerators , MS should get a penalty for insecure web browsers and OSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about fining people that have malware/viruses on their computer and spread it to others?
This is easy enough to track via ISP and IP addresses.
How about fining companies that create these vulnerabilities in the first place that detriment all of us?
How about fining companies that install rootkits and other undesirable DRM that breaks computer functionality in the name of "Security"?
Toyota gets a penalty for unsafe accelerators, MS should get a penalty for insecure web browsers and OSes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338770</id>
	<title>Good idea, but wrong implementation</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1267537320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about levying the tax against the manufacturer of the operating system affected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about levying the tax against the manufacturer of the operating system affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about levying the tax against the manufacturer of the operating system affected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336748</id>
	<title>why not a fine instead</title>
	<author>NiteShaed</author>
	<datestamp>1267528860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it if you drive a car that's unsafe to operate and something happens, nobody thinks twice about the fact that it's the owner's responsibility and when they are hit with a fine everyone just nods, but if it's a computer that's in poor condition (ie: infected), it's an issue that the community must bear to clean up.  I realize that not everyone is technically adept and able maintain their machines adequately themselves, but I don't want to pay for them.  They can hire someone to maintain their machines for them, much like most people do for their cars now, and perhaps the fine could be waved or reduced if they prove that they were current on their maintenance and somehow still got hit.  Hell, it'd be a potentially decent revenue stream for repair-shops and even ISPs that want to offer some kind of maintenance package.</p><p>Of course, the problem here is that people don't feel they should pay for anything to do with a computer other than the price-tag they see when they go to BestBuy.  They'll scream blue-murder if they're told that they actually have a responsibility, both financially and in how they operate their machine.  Most people want to treat a computer the way they do their microwave oven, buy it, and if it breaks, replace it, but never, ever have to spend any time or money on maintenance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it if you drive a car that 's unsafe to operate and something happens , nobody thinks twice about the fact that it 's the owner 's responsibility and when they are hit with a fine everyone just nods , but if it 's a computer that 's in poor condition ( ie : infected ) , it 's an issue that the community must bear to clean up .
I realize that not everyone is technically adept and able maintain their machines adequately themselves , but I do n't want to pay for them .
They can hire someone to maintain their machines for them , much like most people do for their cars now , and perhaps the fine could be waved or reduced if they prove that they were current on their maintenance and somehow still got hit .
Hell , it 'd be a potentially decent revenue stream for repair-shops and even ISPs that want to offer some kind of maintenance package.Of course , the problem here is that people do n't feel they should pay for anything to do with a computer other than the price-tag they see when they go to BestBuy .
They 'll scream blue-murder if they 're told that they actually have a responsibility , both financially and in how they operate their machine .
Most people want to treat a computer the way they do their microwave oven , buy it , and if it breaks , replace it , but never , ever have to spend any time or money on maintenance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it if you drive a car that's unsafe to operate and something happens, nobody thinks twice about the fact that it's the owner's responsibility and when they are hit with a fine everyone just nods, but if it's a computer that's in poor condition (ie: infected), it's an issue that the community must bear to clean up.
I realize that not everyone is technically adept and able maintain their machines adequately themselves, but I don't want to pay for them.
They can hire someone to maintain their machines for them, much like most people do for their cars now, and perhaps the fine could be waved or reduced if they prove that they were current on their maintenance and somehow still got hit.
Hell, it'd be a potentially decent revenue stream for repair-shops and even ISPs that want to offer some kind of maintenance package.Of course, the problem here is that people don't feel they should pay for anything to do with a computer other than the price-tag they see when they go to BestBuy.
They'll scream blue-murder if they're told that they actually have a responsibility, both financially and in how they operate their machine.
Most people want to treat a computer the way they do their microwave oven, buy it, and if it breaks, replace it, but never, ever have to spend any time or money on maintenance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31345510</id>
	<title>Re:Is this the same Government that created it?</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1267631880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I support private ownership of roads and private operation of military. No union works, and no defined benefit pensions.</p><p>Please be less stupid with your future sarcasm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I support private ownership of roads and private operation of military .
No union works , and no defined benefit pensions.Please be less stupid with your future sarcasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support private ownership of roads and private operation of military.
No union works, and no defined benefit pensions.Please be less stupid with your future sarcasm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336800</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1267529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paying for someone else's fuck up. A lot of that going around these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paying for someone else 's fuck up .
A lot of that going around these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paying for someone else's fuck up.
A lot of that going around these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338316</id>
	<title>ISP's filter music, why not viruses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267535280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Some) ISP's think that it's their responsibility to inspect for copyrighted materials, and if they're so hellbent on throttling my P2P, then then can inspect my traffic for malicious content while they're at it and filter that too.  They're already price gouging because there is no competition, the least they could do is use their inspection services for something good and make their service a little more worth the money I'm spending on Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Some ) ISP 's think that it 's their responsibility to inspect for copyrighted materials , and if they 're so hellbent on throttling my P2P , then then can inspect my traffic for malicious content while they 're at it and filter that too .
They 're already price gouging because there is no competition , the least they could do is use their inspection services for something good and make their service a little more worth the money I 'm spending on Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Some) ISP's think that it's their responsibility to inspect for copyrighted materials, and if they're so hellbent on throttling my P2P, then then can inspect my traffic for malicious content while they're at it and filter that too.
They're already price gouging because there is no competition, the least they could do is use their inspection services for something good and make their service a little more worth the money I'm spending on Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337196</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1267530360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot to run Windows Update. Just being connected to the Internet with a hole patched by Microsoft without the patch is inviting a random bot attack when your IP address just happens to be the lucky number drawn by the bot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to run Windows Update .
Just being connected to the Internet with a hole patched by Microsoft without the patch is inviting a random bot attack when your IP address just happens to be the lucky number drawn by the bot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to run Windows Update.
Just being connected to the Internet with a hole patched by Microsoft without the patch is inviting a random bot attack when your IP address just happens to be the lucky number drawn by the bot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339186</id>
	<title>Re:We're taxed to pay for positive externalities.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267540140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"benefit to us"</p><p>"getting rid of the malware"</p><p>You are naive to think that legislation and taxation could ever accomplish such a benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" benefit to us " " getting rid of the malware " You are naive to think that legislation and taxation could ever accomplish such a benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"benefit to us""getting rid of the malware"You are naive to think that legislation and taxation could ever accomplish such a benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337102</id>
	<title>Slippery slope to world internet domination</title>
	<author>SpaceLifeForm</author>
	<datestamp>1267530060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This attack has been 10 years in the making.

It is the oldest trick in the book:  Create a
problem, manage the solution.

Microsoft created the problem by producing an
intentionally defective by design product, that
led to the creation of massive the botnets.

Now they want to manage the solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This attack has been 10 years in the making .
It is the oldest trick in the book : Create a problem , manage the solution .
Microsoft created the problem by producing an intentionally defective by design product , that led to the creation of massive the botnets .
Now they want to manage the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This attack has been 10 years in the making.
It is the oldest trick in the book:  Create a
problem, manage the solution.
Microsoft created the problem by producing an
intentionally defective by design product, that
led to the creation of massive the botnets.
Now they want to manage the solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337182</id>
	<title>Don't tax me bro, I use Linux</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1267530300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That'd be like getting an environmental surcharge on riding a bicycle.</p><p>(But hey, I'm tempted to agree with taxing IE/Outlook.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'd be like getting an environmental surcharge on riding a bicycle .
( But hey , I 'm tempted to agree with taxing IE/Outlook .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'd be like getting an environmental surcharge on riding a bicycle.
(But hey, I'm tempted to agree with taxing IE/Outlook.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336892</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267529400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brilliant!  I mean, if I were Microsoft and forced to pay a tax for infected machines, I'd be pushing updates 5, maybe 6 times a day to try to prevent it.  And just to make sure they install correctly, I'd force a restart on every one.  Yeah, that'll keep the infections down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brilliant !
I mean , if I were Microsoft and forced to pay a tax for infected machines , I 'd be pushing updates 5 , maybe 6 times a day to try to prevent it .
And just to make sure they install correctly , I 'd force a restart on every one .
Yeah , that 'll keep the infections down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brilliant!
I mean, if I were Microsoft and forced to pay a tax for infected machines, I'd be pushing updates 5, maybe 6 times a day to try to prevent it.
And just to make sure they install correctly, I'd force a restart on every one.
Yeah, that'll keep the infections down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31347726</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267641120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except Avast claims to support the office interface for scanning files, but doesn't actually scan anything.</p><p>Last year (doubt it's changed since then) we were building a P2P project that included using the office AV interface.  We were dumbfounded that Avast wasn't able to detect the EICAR signature.  Turns out it just returned success regardless what was passed in, even non-existent files.</p><p>So if you're using Avast and getting a warm fuzzy when Firefox or your browser of choice says "Scanning download", wake up, you've been had.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Avast claims to support the office interface for scanning files , but does n't actually scan anything.Last year ( doubt it 's changed since then ) we were building a P2P project that included using the office AV interface .
We were dumbfounded that Avast was n't able to detect the EICAR signature .
Turns out it just returned success regardless what was passed in , even non-existent files.So if you 're using Avast and getting a warm fuzzy when Firefox or your browser of choice says " Scanning download " , wake up , you 've been had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Avast claims to support the office interface for scanning files, but doesn't actually scan anything.Last year (doubt it's changed since then) we were building a P2P project that included using the office AV interface.
We were dumbfounded that Avast wasn't able to detect the EICAR signature.
Turns out it just returned success regardless what was passed in, even non-existent files.So if you're using Avast and getting a warm fuzzy when Firefox or your browser of choice says "Scanning download", wake up, you've been had.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337264</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>kyuubiunl</author>
	<datestamp>1267530600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um.....there are mac and linux viruses?  So do you get free health care for interesting diseases?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um.....there are mac and linux viruses ?
So do you get free health care for interesting diseases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um.....there are mac and linux viruses?
So do you get free health care for interesting diseases?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340366</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267550280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless they stick with safer OSes.</p><p>As a general principle, I don't agree with legislated penalties for each and every flaw since it's practically impossible to produce software that's perfectly secure against a malicious active attack. However, we have the case of MS who has managed to go above and beyond the call of negligence. Until MS came along, the idea of getting a virus from email or a document was laughable (literally). The problem is setting an appropriate and objective threshold.</p><p>I certainly don't support what amounts to a bailout for Microsoft. Yes, I know the money doesn't go into their pockets, but they do get to skate away from a mess that is largely of their making.</p><p>I wonder how MS would feel about supporting this effort through a sales tax on OSes? I'll happily pay 50\% on my Linux downloads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they stick with safer OSes.As a general principle , I do n't agree with legislated penalties for each and every flaw since it 's practically impossible to produce software that 's perfectly secure against a malicious active attack .
However , we have the case of MS who has managed to go above and beyond the call of negligence .
Until MS came along , the idea of getting a virus from email or a document was laughable ( literally ) .
The problem is setting an appropriate and objective threshold.I certainly do n't support what amounts to a bailout for Microsoft .
Yes , I know the money does n't go into their pockets , but they do get to skate away from a mess that is largely of their making.I wonder how MS would feel about supporting this effort through a sales tax on OSes ?
I 'll happily pay 50 \ % on my Linux downloads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they stick with safer OSes.As a general principle, I don't agree with legislated penalties for each and every flaw since it's practically impossible to produce software that's perfectly secure against a malicious active attack.
However, we have the case of MS who has managed to go above and beyond the call of negligence.
Until MS came along, the idea of getting a virus from email or a document was laughable (literally).
The problem is setting an appropriate and objective threshold.I certainly don't support what amounts to a bailout for Microsoft.
Yes, I know the money doesn't go into their pockets, but they do get to skate away from a mess that is largely of their making.I wonder how MS would feel about supporting this effort through a sales tax on OSes?
I'll happily pay 50\% on my Linux downloads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337510</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1267531620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people browse the web so carelessly that it's like sleeping with every hooker on the street: you're guaranteed to pick up a virus eventually with that kind of behavior.</p><p>On the other hand, there are those rare times that a virus attacks a "safe" site, almost like your wife of 30 years getting infected from a blood transfusion and passing it on to you unknowingly.</p><p>Unfortunately, teaching safe browsing habits to the general public is just as effective as teaching safe sex to teenagers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people browse the web so carelessly that it 's like sleeping with every hooker on the street : you 're guaranteed to pick up a virus eventually with that kind of behavior.On the other hand , there are those rare times that a virus attacks a " safe " site , almost like your wife of 30 years getting infected from a blood transfusion and passing it on to you unknowingly.Unfortunately , teaching safe browsing habits to the general public is just as effective as teaching safe sex to teenagers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people browse the web so carelessly that it's like sleeping with every hooker on the street: you're guaranteed to pick up a virus eventually with that kind of behavior.On the other hand, there are those rare times that a virus attacks a "safe" site, almost like your wife of 30 years getting infected from a blood transfusion and passing it on to you unknowingly.Unfortunately, teaching safe browsing habits to the general public is just as effective as teaching safe sex to teenagers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338710</id>
	<title>Re:'C' drive and registry.</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1267537020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And to change the default drive from 'C' to something else.</p><p>'C' drive for OS, other drives for applications.</p></div><p>Better yet, kill your C:\ drive altogether.  The last time I installed windows on my computer it resided on the respectable K:\ drive.  Never had a single problem besides having to change C:\ to K:\ when I installed software (it's amazing how much is hardcoded into installation files).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And to change the default drive from 'C ' to something else .
'C ' drive for OS , other drives for applications.Better yet , kill your C : \ drive altogether .
The last time I installed windows on my computer it resided on the respectable K : \ drive .
Never had a single problem besides having to change C : \ to K : \ when I installed software ( it 's amazing how much is hardcoded into installation files ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to change the default drive from 'C' to something else.
'C' drive for OS, other drives for applications.Better yet, kill your C:\ drive altogether.
The last time I installed windows on my computer it resided on the respectable K:\ drive.
Never had a single problem besides having to change C:\ to K:\ when I installed software (it's amazing how much is hardcoded into installation files).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337218</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267530420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The grandparent was being facetious. The proposed tax would be paid out to Microsoft, that's why they're suggesting it. They would form a clean-up task-force which would deal with infected Windows PCs by forcing them run Genuine Advantage to make sure they're not infected pirated versions, and the people would pay for that through taxes. Linux companies would never see a dime, because obviously they don't have to do any work to keep their systems clean.</p><p>Ballsy doesn't quite describe this tax proposal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The grandparent was being facetious .
The proposed tax would be paid out to Microsoft , that 's why they 're suggesting it .
They would form a clean-up task-force which would deal with infected Windows PCs by forcing them run Genuine Advantage to make sure they 're not infected pirated versions , and the people would pay for that through taxes .
Linux companies would never see a dime , because obviously they do n't have to do any work to keep their systems clean.Ballsy does n't quite describe this tax proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The grandparent was being facetious.
The proposed tax would be paid out to Microsoft, that's why they're suggesting it.
They would form a clean-up task-force which would deal with infected Windows PCs by forcing them run Genuine Advantage to make sure they're not infected pirated versions, and the people would pay for that through taxes.
Linux companies would never see a dime, because obviously they don't have to do any work to keep their systems clean.Ballsy doesn't quite describe this tax proposal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342120</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267608840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a minor correction to your post. Microsoft Outlook, by default, doesn't download images in an email. It asks you if you trust the source before doing it.</p><p>Antivirus and virus free for 5 months now... Never been happier<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a minor correction to your post .
Microsoft Outlook , by default , does n't download images in an email .
It asks you if you trust the source before doing it.Antivirus and virus free for 5 months now... Never been happier : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a minor correction to your post.
Microsoft Outlook, by default, doesn't download images in an email.
It asks you if you trust the source before doing it.Antivirus and virus free for 5 months now... Never been happier :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336844</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>ComputerGeek01</author>
	<datestamp>1267529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, didn't you read the blurb? You can't read the article maybe because the host site didn't pay the taxes for the infections their Ads are causing. We are trying to solve a non-issue by adding an unnecessary tax to a thing (The Internet) because that is what we do for a broken system (Our Health Care). Even having this meeting is possibly the most back-assward thing the Obama Administration has done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , did n't you read the blurb ?
You ca n't read the article maybe because the host site did n't pay the taxes for the infections their Ads are causing .
We are trying to solve a non-issue by adding an unnecessary tax to a thing ( The Internet ) because that is what we do for a broken system ( Our Health Care ) .
Even having this meeting is possibly the most back-assward thing the Obama Administration has done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, didn't you read the blurb?
You can't read the article maybe because the host site didn't pay the taxes for the infections their Ads are causing.
We are trying to solve a non-issue by adding an unnecessary tax to a thing (The Internet) because that is what we do for a broken system (Our Health Care).
Even having this meeting is possibly the most back-assward thing the Obama Administration has done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339376</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1267541580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be required to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers?</p></div><p>Just look at it as paying for a service to keep cluseless people from knocking on your virtual tcp door all day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;}</p><p>Now if only we had a real life service to keep the stupid away...  'Scuse me while I file a quick patent before someone else gets it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be required to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers ? Just look at it as paying for a service to keep cluseless people from knocking on your virtual tcp door all day ; } Now if only we had a real life service to keep the stupid away... 'Scuse me while I file a quick patent before someone else gets it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be required to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers?Just look at it as paying for a service to keep cluseless people from knocking on your virtual tcp door all day ;}Now if only we had a real life service to keep the stupid away...  'Scuse me while I file a quick patent before someone else gets it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340788</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1267554480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a decently powerful computer you can use virtualization like KVM (KVM can be a bear to install, but it is probably available in a package for your Linux) or VMWare Player (easy).  Build an XP VM with all your Windows tools and antimalware and antivirus and whatnot, install a good hosts file and patch it.  Then turn it off, write protect it and clone it.  Only use the clones, and toss them now and then.  That way you don't have to reboot your main PC just to open some stupid Windows app, and if you need Windows for something risky (like, say, a Webex) you can use it once and discard it, and your Windows always has that fresh "just installed" snappiness that wears off after six months.  More importantly you can fire up the VM and shut it down without rebooting your real box. Windows belongs in a VM.
</p><p>Then all you need to actually boot a Windows box for is to play some games, if you're into that, and not even that much longer.  PCI passthrough feature is on its way and when it's here you'll be able to pass that hot graphics card through to the VM when you need to, which is the only part of the Windows experience that doesn't cross over.
</p><p>Another upside of this is that you get to do the VM thing more.  VMs are cool.  You can do things like test drive clusters of OpenFiler boxes and see how virtual IP addressing helps with transparent failover.  You can stand up an entire network of BSD routers and grasp some more challenging routing convergence problems.  You can build an encrypted VM to hide your "research" in.  All sorts of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a decently powerful computer you can use virtualization like KVM ( KVM can be a bear to install , but it is probably available in a package for your Linux ) or VMWare Player ( easy ) .
Build an XP VM with all your Windows tools and antimalware and antivirus and whatnot , install a good hosts file and patch it .
Then turn it off , write protect it and clone it .
Only use the clones , and toss them now and then .
That way you do n't have to reboot your main PC just to open some stupid Windows app , and if you need Windows for something risky ( like , say , a Webex ) you can use it once and discard it , and your Windows always has that fresh " just installed " snappiness that wears off after six months .
More importantly you can fire up the VM and shut it down without rebooting your real box .
Windows belongs in a VM .
Then all you need to actually boot a Windows box for is to play some games , if you 're into that , and not even that much longer .
PCI passthrough feature is on its way and when it 's here you 'll be able to pass that hot graphics card through to the VM when you need to , which is the only part of the Windows experience that does n't cross over .
Another upside of this is that you get to do the VM thing more .
VMs are cool .
You can do things like test drive clusters of OpenFiler boxes and see how virtual IP addressing helps with transparent failover .
You can stand up an entire network of BSD routers and grasp some more challenging routing convergence problems .
You can build an encrypted VM to hide your " research " in .
All sorts of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a decently powerful computer you can use virtualization like KVM (KVM can be a bear to install, but it is probably available in a package for your Linux) or VMWare Player (easy).
Build an XP VM with all your Windows tools and antimalware and antivirus and whatnot, install a good hosts file and patch it.
Then turn it off, write protect it and clone it.
Only use the clones, and toss them now and then.
That way you don't have to reboot your main PC just to open some stupid Windows app, and if you need Windows for something risky (like, say, a Webex) you can use it once and discard it, and your Windows always has that fresh "just installed" snappiness that wears off after six months.
More importantly you can fire up the VM and shut it down without rebooting your real box.
Windows belongs in a VM.
Then all you need to actually boot a Windows box for is to play some games, if you're into that, and not even that much longer.
PCI passthrough feature is on its way and when it's here you'll be able to pass that hot graphics card through to the VM when you need to, which is the only part of the Windows experience that doesn't cross over.
Another upside of this is that you get to do the VM thing more.
VMs are cool.
You can do things like test drive clusters of OpenFiler boxes and see how virtual IP addressing helps with transparent failover.
You can stand up an entire network of BSD routers and grasp some more challenging routing convergence problems.
You can build an encrypted VM to hide your "research" in.
All sorts of things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337270</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>john83</author>
	<datestamp>1267530600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Relax. You're just trading one overhead for another.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Relax .
You 're just trading one overhead for another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relax.
You're just trading one overhead for another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339362</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1267541460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Must add here: ClamWin is a good open source anti-virus option. <br>

It does not do on-access scan. But if you follow the posters advice below you are fine, but some kind of virus-scanning capability is essiential in the windows world.<br>

Even on Linux, which can be carrier for infected files and data.<p><div class="quote"><p>Can't be bothered?</p><p>Have you *used* anti-virus software lately?  It takes over your computer and bogs everything down by scanning at irritating times, like every file access.</p><p>I don't use anti-virus software, except for the occasional one-off malware scan.  I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.</p><p>* I don't trust free downloads unless they're open source, or a google on "$SOFTWARE spyware" comes up clean.
* I don't browse porn (or anything else) on internet explorer.
* I don't browse porn with adblock turned off.
* I don't download stupid free desktop frills, like smileys and crap.
* I don't open obvious spam, even if it appears to be from my friends.
* When a webpage informs me that it has SCANNED MY COMPUTER and VIRUS DETECTED, I remember that I did not, in fact, install a virus scanner, and that the message is fake, and I do not have to install their special software to fix it.  Instead, I close the web page.
* When doing p2p file-sharing, I use clients that are well known and spyware free.
* I don't put audio CDs into my machine when I'm running Windows, because they might install rootkits.
* I always click the "advanced" button when I install software, because that's where they hide the fact that they're installing a bunch of extra shit I don't want.
* Under no circumstances do I *ever* install Norton, which in my experience is far worse for performance than any virus.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Must add here : ClamWin is a good open source anti-virus option .
It does not do on-access scan .
But if you follow the posters advice below you are fine , but some kind of virus-scanning capability is essiential in the windows world .
Even on Linux , which can be carrier for infected files and data.Ca n't be bothered ? Have you * used * anti-virus software lately ?
It takes over your computer and bogs everything down by scanning at irritating times , like every file access.I do n't use anti-virus software , except for the occasional one-off malware scan .
I do n't get viruses because I do n't do stupid shit .
* I do n't trust free downloads unless they 're open source , or a google on " $ SOFTWARE spyware " comes up clean .
* I do n't browse porn ( or anything else ) on internet explorer .
* I do n't browse porn with adblock turned off .
* I do n't download stupid free desktop frills , like smileys and crap .
* I do n't open obvious spam , even if it appears to be from my friends .
* When a webpage informs me that it has SCANNED MY COMPUTER and VIRUS DETECTED , I remember that I did not , in fact , install a virus scanner , and that the message is fake , and I do not have to install their special software to fix it .
Instead , I close the web page .
* When doing p2p file-sharing , I use clients that are well known and spyware free .
* I do n't put audio CDs into my machine when I 'm running Windows , because they might install rootkits .
* I always click the " advanced " button when I install software , because that 's where they hide the fact that they 're installing a bunch of extra shit I do n't want .
* Under no circumstances do I * ever * install Norton , which in my experience is far worse for performance than any virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must add here: ClamWin is a good open source anti-virus option.
It does not do on-access scan.
But if you follow the posters advice below you are fine, but some kind of virus-scanning capability is essiential in the windows world.
Even on Linux, which can be carrier for infected files and data.Can't be bothered?Have you *used* anti-virus software lately?
It takes over your computer and bogs everything down by scanning at irritating times, like every file access.I don't use anti-virus software, except for the occasional one-off malware scan.
I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.
* I don't trust free downloads unless they're open source, or a google on "$SOFTWARE spyware" comes up clean.
* I don't browse porn (or anything else) on internet explorer.
* I don't browse porn with adblock turned off.
* I don't download stupid free desktop frills, like smileys and crap.
* I don't open obvious spam, even if it appears to be from my friends.
* When a webpage informs me that it has SCANNED MY COMPUTER and VIRUS DETECTED, I remember that I did not, in fact, install a virus scanner, and that the message is fake, and I do not have to install their special software to fix it.
Instead, I close the web page.
* When doing p2p file-sharing, I use clients that are well known and spyware free.
* I don't put audio CDs into my machine when I'm running Windows, because they might install rootkits.
* I always click the "advanced" button when I install software, because that's where they hide the fact that they're installing a bunch of extra shit I don't want.
* Under no circumstances do I *ever* install Norton, which in my experience is far worse for performance than any virus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337202</id>
	<title>Haven't we all paid enough MS tax?</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1267530360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the solution switching to more reliable and secure OS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the solution switching to more reliable and secure OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the solution switching to more reliable and secure OS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336868</id>
	<title>But I already paid the tax...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267529340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I bought a Mac.</p><p>Others I know paid the tax by installing Linux instead of using the Windows OS that shipped with their computer.</p><p>If they want to add a tax, perhaps they should refund those of us who do not use Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I bought a Mac.Others I know paid the tax by installing Linux instead of using the Windows OS that shipped with their computer.If they want to add a tax , perhaps they should refund those of us who do not use Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I bought a Mac.Others I know paid the tax by installing Linux instead of using the Windows OS that shipped with their computer.If they want to add a tax, perhaps they should refund those of us who do not use Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340214</id>
	<title>Microsoft Gall</title>
	<author>BlindBear</author>
	<datestamp>1267548960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This idea is one of the biggest insults that Microsoft has pulled lately, Mr Charney must think he is a comedian, surely. I know that a clean internet is a 'good thing', but a Microsoft free internet would be a 'better thing'. We probably can't have that for a while so in the interim I suggest a reasonable tax on all Microsoft software to clean up 'my internet' until the problem has gone away. I use zero Microsoft products, but faulty Microsoft products do ruin 'my internet experience' and I truly loathe those responsible. So let us all ram home responsibility where it belongs, let Big Stevie know what we think of Little Scotty's idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea is one of the biggest insults that Microsoft has pulled lately , Mr Charney must think he is a comedian , surely .
I know that a clean internet is a 'good thing ' , but a Microsoft free internet would be a 'better thing' .
We probably ca n't have that for a while so in the interim I suggest a reasonable tax on all Microsoft software to clean up 'my internet ' until the problem has gone away .
I use zero Microsoft products , but faulty Microsoft products do ruin 'my internet experience ' and I truly loathe those responsible .
So let us all ram home responsibility where it belongs , let Big Stevie know what we think of Little Scotty 's idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This idea is one of the biggest insults that Microsoft has pulled lately, Mr Charney must think he is a comedian, surely.
I know that a clean internet is a 'good thing', but a Microsoft free internet would be a 'better thing'.
We probably can't have that for a while so in the interim I suggest a reasonable tax on all Microsoft software to clean up 'my internet' until the problem has gone away.
I use zero Microsoft products, but faulty Microsoft products do ruin 'my internet experience' and I truly loathe those responsible.
So let us all ram home responsibility where it belongs, let Big Stevie know what we think of Little Scotty's idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341944</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1267607520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.</p><p>To quote Gandi: "I think it would be a good idea."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.To quote Gandi : " I think it would be a good idea .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.To quote Gandi: "I think it would be a good idea.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337066</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1267529940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe Linux, but not Mac. Mac has it's own malware, while small it's still there and growing as Mac is growing. Mac even has it's own botnet</p></div><p>Hardly a problem and hardly growing. The item you refer to was a trojan that you had to install yourself by downloading pirated copy of iWorks 09 from a torrent and entering your admin password. It had nothing to do with a botnet and, although it could have been potentially troublesome, it never actually did anything. In fact, unless the user was running as Admin, the program would just exit because it needed <b>sudo</b> privileges to do it's job. Besides, even if you did get infected, it was easy to remove and as far as I know, it's completely disappeared in the year since that article was published. I tried a Google search and the latest mention of it I could find was April 2009.</p><p>Compare that to a Windows machine connected to the Internet without some sort of protection--it can become infected without the user doing anything at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Linux , but not Mac .
Mac has it 's own malware , while small it 's still there and growing as Mac is growing .
Mac even has it 's own botnetHardly a problem and hardly growing .
The item you refer to was a trojan that you had to install yourself by downloading pirated copy of iWorks 09 from a torrent and entering your admin password .
It had nothing to do with a botnet and , although it could have been potentially troublesome , it never actually did anything .
In fact , unless the user was running as Admin , the program would just exit because it needed sudo privileges to do it 's job .
Besides , even if you did get infected , it was easy to remove and as far as I know , it 's completely disappeared in the year since that article was published .
I tried a Google search and the latest mention of it I could find was April 2009.Compare that to a Windows machine connected to the Internet without some sort of protection--it can become infected without the user doing anything at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Linux, but not Mac.
Mac has it's own malware, while small it's still there and growing as Mac is growing.
Mac even has it's own botnetHardly a problem and hardly growing.
The item you refer to was a trojan that you had to install yourself by downloading pirated copy of iWorks 09 from a torrent and entering your admin password.
It had nothing to do with a botnet and, although it could have been potentially troublesome, it never actually did anything.
In fact, unless the user was running as Admin, the program would just exit because it needed sudo privileges to do it's job.
Besides, even if you did get infected, it was easy to remove and as far as I know, it's completely disappeared in the year since that article was published.
I tried a Google search and the latest mention of it I could find was April 2009.Compare that to a Windows machine connected to the Internet without some sort of protection--it can become infected without the user doing anything at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338844</id>
	<title>needed public service?</title>
	<author>mcguyver</author>
	<datestamp>1267537800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like this idea.  I have non-techy friends, their laptops are riddles with viruses and anti-virus software.  To top it off, anti virus software providers are part of the problem.  Their free trial popus are almost worse than a virus.  So, the need exists.  Any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. isn't going to have this problem but the rest of the world having this problem makes it everyone's problem.

Using public funds to keep the net virus free is a good approach.  Some services you can't commercialize.  If each person had the right to decide to not pay for the DMV, public education or the military then those services wouldn't exist.  Keeping the net free does fall into this category.  Everyone wants it but no one wants to pay for it...forget where I read this drivel...but its interesting to see why or why not services are privatized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this idea .
I have non-techy friends , their laptops are riddles with viruses and anti-virus software .
To top it off , anti virus software providers are part of the problem .
Their free trial popus are almost worse than a virus .
So , the need exists .
Any / .
is n't going to have this problem but the rest of the world having this problem makes it everyone 's problem .
Using public funds to keep the net virus free is a good approach .
Some services you ca n't commercialize .
If each person had the right to decide to not pay for the DMV , public education or the military then those services would n't exist .
Keeping the net free does fall into this category .
Everyone wants it but no one wants to pay for it...forget where I read this drivel...but its interesting to see why or why not services are privatized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this idea.
I have non-techy friends, their laptops are riddles with viruses and anti-virus software.
To top it off, anti virus software providers are part of the problem.
Their free trial popus are almost worse than a virus.
So, the need exists.
Any /.
isn't going to have this problem but the rest of the world having this problem makes it everyone's problem.
Using public funds to keep the net virus free is a good approach.
Some services you can't commercialize.
If each person had the right to decide to not pay for the DMV, public education or the military then those services wouldn't exist.
Keeping the net free does fall into this category.
Everyone wants it but no one wants to pay for it...forget where I read this drivel...but its interesting to see why or why not services are privatized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338742</id>
	<title>No thanks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267537200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please don't.  I charge $75/hour to clean the home computers of people i work with.  That's a lot of beer money you'd be taking from me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't .
I charge $ 75/hour to clean the home computers of people i work with .
That 's a lot of beer money you 'd be taking from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't.
I charge $75/hour to clean the home computers of people i work with.
That's a lot of beer money you'd be taking from me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337062</id>
	<title>A carbon-trade approach might be better...</title>
	<author>feranick</author>
	<datestamp>1267529940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I smoke, I am at risk, so my premium goes up. If I use MS products the same applies. Why should I be taxed if i am already conscious and proactive about being safe?<br> <br>

Why not using something similar to a carbon-trade approach. Say you use Linux or Macs, you are already contributing to a safer environment. You can sell your shares to more "polluting" users (of MS products). That would be more fair, and in honesty more appropriate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I smoke , I am at risk , so my premium goes up .
If I use MS products the same applies .
Why should I be taxed if i am already conscious and proactive about being safe ?
Why not using something similar to a carbon-trade approach .
Say you use Linux or Macs , you are already contributing to a safer environment .
You can sell your shares to more " polluting " users ( of MS products ) .
That would be more fair , and in honesty more appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I smoke, I am at risk, so my premium goes up.
If I use MS products the same applies.
Why should I be taxed if i am already conscious and proactive about being safe?
Why not using something similar to a carbon-trade approach.
Say you use Linux or Macs, you are already contributing to a safer environment.
You can sell your shares to more "polluting" users (of MS products).
That would be more fair, and in honesty more appropriate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341484</id>
	<title>I'm running Unix in one form or another</title>
	<author>Allnighterking</author>
	<datestamp>1267647120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On all my systems.  I should be tax exempt.  Period.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On all my systems .
I should be tax exempt .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On all my systems.
I should be tax exempt.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340092</id>
	<title>I'm all for it...</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1267548000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as long as Microsoft pays the tax.  After all, they are the cause of those virus infections.  About half of the worldwide Windows revenues ought to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as long as Microsoft pays the tax .
After all , they are the cause of those virus infections .
About half of the worldwide Windows revenues ought to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as long as Microsoft pays the tax.
After all, they are the cause of those virus infections.
About half of the worldwide Windows revenues ought to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31344118</id>
	<title>Re:Is this the same Government that created it?</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1267625220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US government helped build some chunks of the early internet. Yes.<br>It did not however created the Internet all on it's own.<br>Lots of governments and private institutions did that.</p><p>It's a stupid little piece of American nationalist myth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US government helped build some chunks of the early internet .
Yes.It did not however created the Internet all on it 's own.Lots of governments and private institutions did that.It 's a stupid little piece of American nationalist myth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US government helped build some chunks of the early internet.
Yes.It did not however created the Internet all on it's own.Lots of governments and private institutions did that.It's a stupid little piece of American nationalist myth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337460</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267531440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you view pdf files or flash content?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you view pdf files or flash content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you view pdf files or flash content?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339730</id>
	<title>I propose a better solution</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1267544520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I propose a better solution:</p><p>Since Windows is obviously the problem for 99.999\%+ of the instances of malware out there, why not tax Microsoft directly since they're the ones negligent in this manner (requiring antispyware and antivirus software that slows PCs to a crawl, and are largely effective against new trojans and viruses <i>anyhow</i>, since they're the ones who delivered the pathetically insecure piece of shit Windows. Why should users of Mac, Linux, and $OTHER operating system be penalized?</p><p>Better yet, why doesn't the FCC investigate this and slap some huge fines on Microsoft for creating this mess in the first place, and make the fine significant enough so that Microsoft doesn't consider it simply being the cost of doing business, but inspires them to finally cut the cord on backwards compatibility and move to a *NIX or VMS security model from the kernel all the way up to the UI? Even in Windows 7, security is a tacked-on afterthought due to Microsoft's never having considered cutting the cord on backwards compatibility with Win3x and Win9x - heck, even today many apps still in widespread use in businesses ranging from sole proprietorships to enterprise-size megacorps <i>still</i> require Administrative privileges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I propose a better solution : Since Windows is obviously the problem for 99.999 \ % + of the instances of malware out there , why not tax Microsoft directly since they 're the ones negligent in this manner ( requiring antispyware and antivirus software that slows PCs to a crawl , and are largely effective against new trojans and viruses anyhow , since they 're the ones who delivered the pathetically insecure piece of shit Windows .
Why should users of Mac , Linux , and $ OTHER operating system be penalized ? Better yet , why does n't the FCC investigate this and slap some huge fines on Microsoft for creating this mess in the first place , and make the fine significant enough so that Microsoft does n't consider it simply being the cost of doing business , but inspires them to finally cut the cord on backwards compatibility and move to a * NIX or VMS security model from the kernel all the way up to the UI ?
Even in Windows 7 , security is a tacked-on afterthought due to Microsoft 's never having considered cutting the cord on backwards compatibility with Win3x and Win9x - heck , even today many apps still in widespread use in businesses ranging from sole proprietorships to enterprise-size megacorps still require Administrative privileges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I propose a better solution:Since Windows is obviously the problem for 99.999\%+ of the instances of malware out there, why not tax Microsoft directly since they're the ones negligent in this manner (requiring antispyware and antivirus software that slows PCs to a crawl, and are largely effective against new trojans and viruses anyhow, since they're the ones who delivered the pathetically insecure piece of shit Windows.
Why should users of Mac, Linux, and $OTHER operating system be penalized?Better yet, why doesn't the FCC investigate this and slap some huge fines on Microsoft for creating this mess in the first place, and make the fine significant enough so that Microsoft doesn't consider it simply being the cost of doing business, but inspires them to finally cut the cord on backwards compatibility and move to a *NIX or VMS security model from the kernel all the way up to the UI?
Even in Windows 7, security is a tacked-on afterthought due to Microsoft's never having considered cutting the cord on backwards compatibility with Win3x and Win9x - heck, even today many apps still in widespread use in businesses ranging from sole proprietorships to enterprise-size megacorps still require Administrative privileges.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337222</id>
	<title>such a tax would at least make it official</title>
	<author>mugurel</author>
	<datestamp>1267530480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that all those bucks spent on an MS license only entitle you to a bug-ridden, unsafe operating system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that all those bucks spent on an MS license only entitle you to a bug-ridden , unsafe operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that all those bucks spent on an MS license only entitle you to a bug-ridden, unsafe operating system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337086</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267530000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. Lets see here, if I don't keep any confidential information on my computer, don't use it for e-commerce much (or you know, boot into Linux if I need to buy something which honestly I boot into Linux 90\% of the time....) an anti-virus is going to use up more resources than a virus and negatively impact your experience. <br> <br>

Lets see here an average anti-virus is going to: <br> <br>

A) Waste lots of network resources downloading updates <br>
B) Constantly use up I/O resources scanning every file <br>
C) Mess with defaults <br>
D) Use a completely different theme ruining whatever aesthetic pleasure there was in Windows <br>
E) Constantly use CPU time <br>
F) Constantly say that your subscription has OMG 60 DAYS LEFT!!!! THATS LESS THAN 3 MONTHS!!!! Usually when giving a presentation <br>
G) Interrupt gaming <br>
H) Ignore all -real- threats like the Sony Rootkit and the like <br> <br>

An average virus is going to <br> <br>

Use some I/O resources finding sensitive files, use light network resources sending spam and generally work in the background. <br> <br>

My experience is going to be less interrupted with a virus than an AV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Lets see here , if I do n't keep any confidential information on my computer , do n't use it for e-commerce much ( or you know , boot into Linux if I need to buy something which honestly I boot into Linux 90 \ % of the time.... ) an anti-virus is going to use up more resources than a virus and negatively impact your experience .
Lets see here an average anti-virus is going to : A ) Waste lots of network resources downloading updates B ) Constantly use up I/O resources scanning every file C ) Mess with defaults D ) Use a completely different theme ruining whatever aesthetic pleasure there was in Windows E ) Constantly use CPU time F ) Constantly say that your subscription has OMG 60 DAYS LEFT ! ! ! !
THATS LESS THAN 3 MONTHS ! ! ! !
Usually when giving a presentation G ) Interrupt gaming H ) Ignore all -real- threats like the Sony Rootkit and the like An average virus is going to Use some I/O resources finding sensitive files , use light network resources sending spam and generally work in the background .
My experience is going to be less interrupted with a virus than an AV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Lets see here, if I don't keep any confidential information on my computer, don't use it for e-commerce much (or you know, boot into Linux if I need to buy something which honestly I boot into Linux 90\% of the time....) an anti-virus is going to use up more resources than a virus and negatively impact your experience.
Lets see here an average anti-virus is going to:  

A) Waste lots of network resources downloading updates 
B) Constantly use up I/O resources scanning every file 
C) Mess with defaults 
D) Use a completely different theme ruining whatever aesthetic pleasure there was in Windows 
E) Constantly use CPU time 
F) Constantly say that your subscription has OMG 60 DAYS LEFT!!!!
THATS LESS THAN 3 MONTHS!!!!
Usually when giving a presentation 
G) Interrupt gaming 
H) Ignore all -real- threats like the Sony Rootkit and the like  

An average virus is going to  

Use some I/O resources finding sensitive files, use light network resources sending spam and generally work in the background.
My experience is going to be less interrupted with a virus than an AV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337370</id>
	<title>This is like...</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1267531020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is like taxing my Honda to pay for the Toyota recall.
</p><p>It's patently ridiculous; but in this rent-seeking based corpocracy,
it doesn't surprise me that they'd try it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like taxing my Honda to pay for the Toyota recall .
It 's patently ridiculous ; but in this rent-seeking based corpocracy , it does n't surprise me that they 'd try it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like taxing my Honda to pay for the Toyota recall.
It's patently ridiculous; but in this rent-seeking based corpocracy,
it doesn't surprise me that they'd try it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340036</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267547460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the populace ever followed the rules (and they are starting to), Joe Spammer will just change his tactics (and he has started).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Intelligence/ is the only defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the populace ever followed the rules ( and they are starting to ) , Joe Spammer will just change his tactics ( and he has started ) .
/Intelligence/ is the only defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the populace ever followed the rules (and they are starting to), Joe Spammer will just change his tactics (and he has started).
/Intelligence/ is the only defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340896</id>
	<title>Creator of Problem</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1267555560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, just like health care - there's a conflict of interest: Bill Gates / Microsoft created the problem they want to tax for. Had they written Windows properly we would not have this problem. May Gates burn in Heck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , just like health care - there 's a conflict of interest : Bill Gates / Microsoft created the problem they want to tax for .
Had they written Windows properly we would not have this problem .
May Gates burn in Heck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, just like health care - there's a conflict of interest: Bill Gates / Microsoft created the problem they want to tax for.
Had they written Windows properly we would not have this problem.
May Gates burn in Heck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337096</id>
	<title>This could work, but only if done fairly</title>
	<author>chaoskitty</author>
	<datestamp>1267530060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft OSes are responsible for 99\% of all infections, then if they pay for 99\% of the tax, that'd work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft OSes are responsible for 99 \ % of all infections , then if they pay for 99 \ % of the tax , that 'd work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft OSes are responsible for 99\% of all infections, then if they pay for 99\% of the tax, that'd work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339242</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Akaihiryuu</author>
	<datestamp>1267540560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree here.  The ONLY anti-malware type product I will allow on my Windows machine is Malwarebytes.  Manual updates, manual everything.  I run a scan once a week just to make sure I didn't catch a case of the stupids that week.  Honestly, I don't even use noscript...adblock plus and flashblock take care of pretty much everything.  I only run flash on sites I know...which these days consists almost entirely of youtube, homestar runner, and the WOW armory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree here .
The ONLY anti-malware type product I will allow on my Windows machine is Malwarebytes .
Manual updates , manual everything .
I run a scan once a week just to make sure I did n't catch a case of the stupids that week .
Honestly , I do n't even use noscript...adblock plus and flashblock take care of pretty much everything .
I only run flash on sites I know...which these days consists almost entirely of youtube , homestar runner , and the WOW armory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree here.
The ONLY anti-malware type product I will allow on my Windows machine is Malwarebytes.
Manual updates, manual everything.
I run a scan once a week just to make sure I didn't catch a case of the stupids that week.
Honestly, I don't even use noscript...adblock plus and flashblock take care of pretty much everything.
I only run flash on sites I know...which these days consists almost entirely of youtube, homestar runner, and the WOW armory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337390</id>
	<title>I can't be the only one to think this, but....</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1267531080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...how about we tax Microsoft?  How many of these security problems over the past 15 years were based on bad design decisions, and how many were inevitable?</p><p>And while we're at it, Adobe deserves a levy also.</p><p>Of course, if the majority of these security problems were essentially unforseeable by anybody, then why not encourage the ISPs to take the reins and do what needs to be done.</p><p>Oh, no, that doesn't make any sense...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...how about we tax Microsoft ?
How many of these security problems over the past 15 years were based on bad design decisions , and how many were inevitable ? And while we 're at it , Adobe deserves a levy also.Of course , if the majority of these security problems were essentially unforseeable by anybody , then why not encourage the ISPs to take the reins and do what needs to be done.Oh , no , that does n't make any sense.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how about we tax Microsoft?
How many of these security problems over the past 15 years were based on bad design decisions, and how many were inevitable?And while we're at it, Adobe deserves a levy also.Of course, if the majority of these security problems were essentially unforseeable by anybody, then why not encourage the ISPs to take the reins and do what needs to be done.Oh, no, that doesn't make any sense...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336950</id>
	<title>Quarantine...</title>
	<author>Erinnys Tisiphone</author>
	<datestamp>1267529640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In today's healthcare system, one who pays for insurance can generally opt to go or not to go to the doctor if he or she is ill. However, if somebody is deemed extremely infectious or a harm to his/herself or others, there is precedent for authorities to force a person to accept treatment and quarantine.

I think that people are less likely to address computer security concerns (particularly computers which are being used as bots to attack or spam others) than illness in their actual person. So what would be the end outcome? The potential that one's computer could be confiscated for cleaning? Certainly admirable from a security standpoint, but a gross violation of privacy and personal property as we know it today. This would take a tremendous rethinking of how critical our network infrastructure is to society and the liability of individuals for computer security.

I personally would not want my computer removed from my home if I were to get an infection which I myself could clean within an hour or two. This opens the door to some interesting interpretations of the law and public defense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In today 's healthcare system , one who pays for insurance can generally opt to go or not to go to the doctor if he or she is ill. However , if somebody is deemed extremely infectious or a harm to his/herself or others , there is precedent for authorities to force a person to accept treatment and quarantine .
I think that people are less likely to address computer security concerns ( particularly computers which are being used as bots to attack or spam others ) than illness in their actual person .
So what would be the end outcome ?
The potential that one 's computer could be confiscated for cleaning ?
Certainly admirable from a security standpoint , but a gross violation of privacy and personal property as we know it today .
This would take a tremendous rethinking of how critical our network infrastructure is to society and the liability of individuals for computer security .
I personally would not want my computer removed from my home if I were to get an infection which I myself could clean within an hour or two .
This opens the door to some interesting interpretations of the law and public defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In today's healthcare system, one who pays for insurance can generally opt to go or not to go to the doctor if he or she is ill. However, if somebody is deemed extremely infectious or a harm to his/herself or others, there is precedent for authorities to force a person to accept treatment and quarantine.
I think that people are less likely to address computer security concerns (particularly computers which are being used as bots to attack or spam others) than illness in their actual person.
So what would be the end outcome?
The potential that one's computer could be confiscated for cleaning?
Certainly admirable from a security standpoint, but a gross violation of privacy and personal property as we know it today.
This would take a tremendous rethinking of how critical our network infrastructure is to society and the liability of individuals for computer security.
I personally would not want my computer removed from my home if I were to get an infection which I myself could clean within an hour or two.
This opens the door to some interesting interpretations of the law and public defense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336818</id>
	<title>So long as I get a tax credit</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1267529160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I support it if I get a tax credit for not having any windows machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I support it if I get a tax credit for not having any windows machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I support it if I get a tax credit for not having any windows machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336988</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>jdgeorge</author>
	<datestamp>1267529700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone benefits from an internet largely free of infected machines. Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.</p></div><p>Baloney. Only *******s benefit from an educated and healthy society. *******s benefit from the alternative.</p><p>And yes, asterisks benefit from self-censors.</p><p>(Go on, count them to figure out whether you're offended.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone benefits from an internet largely free of infected machines .
Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.Baloney .
Only * * * * * * * s benefit from an educated and healthy society .
* * * * * * * s benefit from the alternative.And yes , asterisks benefit from self-censors .
( Go on , count them to figure out whether you 're offended .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone benefits from an internet largely free of infected machines.
Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.Baloney.
Only *******s benefit from an educated and healthy society.
*******s benefit from the alternative.And yes, asterisks benefit from self-censors.
(Go on, count them to figure out whether you're offended.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341734</id>
	<title>In related news...</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1267649160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exxon Corp., (NASDAQ:  XOM) has proposed congress levy a tax to clean up the messes left by their ships every time one spills a couple million gallons of crude oil into a previously (more-or-less) unspoilt environment.  Because... it's not like it was ANY fault of theirs, OH NO!  NOT THEIR MESS.  Why doesn't Misro$oft start taxing people for using their competitor's prod...ucts...  oh yeah, they basically do.  BTW, moderators:  It's not "bashing" if they deserve it.  Aaaand... they so do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exxon Corp. , ( NASDAQ : XOM ) has proposed congress levy a tax to clean up the messes left by their ships every time one spills a couple million gallons of crude oil into a previously ( more-or-less ) unspoilt environment .
Because... it 's not like it was ANY fault of theirs , OH NO !
NOT THEIR MESS .
Why does n't Misro $ oft start taxing people for using their competitor 's prod...ucts... oh yeah , they basically do .
BTW , moderators : It 's not " bashing " if they deserve it .
Aaaand... they so do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exxon Corp., (NASDAQ:  XOM) has proposed congress levy a tax to clean up the messes left by their ships every time one spills a couple million gallons of crude oil into a previously (more-or-less) unspoilt environment.
Because... it's not like it was ANY fault of theirs, OH NO!
NOT THEIR MESS.
Why doesn't Misro$oft start taxing people for using their competitor's prod...ucts...  oh yeah, they basically do.
BTW, moderators:  It's not "bashing" if they deserve it.
Aaaand... they so do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340652</id>
	<title>How MS is collecting US tax dollars</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1267553100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although MS is hugely profitable, MS prefers have the taxpayers pay MS bills.</p><p>For example:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Critics slam Microsoft bridge as waste of stimulus money<br>Critics of using stimulus money for the bridge say it would give the software giant a break on a pet project.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/31/bridge.microsoft/index.html" title="cnn.com">http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/31/bridge.microsoft/index.html</a> [cnn.com]</p><p>Here's another example:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft To Get $100M Annual Tax Cut and Amnesty<br>"Despite a $2.8 billion deficit, Washington State's House Bill 3176 would provide Microsoft with an effective $100 million tax cut annually and possible amnesty on its $1.27 billion Nevada tax maneuverings. Under current law, all of Microsoft's worldwide licensing revenues of approximately $20.7 billion annually are taxable at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.484 percent. Under the new law, only the portion of software licenses sold to Washington state customers would be taxable. Ironically, after slashing Microsoft's tax burden, HB3176 directs the Department of Revenue to crack down on 'abusive tax transactions' like those in Nevada -- except for a loophole that may provide Microsoft amnesty on its twelve year practice. The bill's lead sponsor is Ross Hunter of Medina, home to Bill Gates and a number of current and former Microsoft billionaires and multi-millionaires, and other areas around Microsoft's corporate campus."</p></div><p> <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/15/1957205/Microsoft-To-Get-100M-Annual-Tax-Cut-and-Amnesty" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/15/1957205/Microsoft-To-Get-100M-Annual-Tax-Cut-and-Amnesty</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>And now, again, msft is asking the US taxpayer to pick up the bill for what should be msft's expense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although MS is hugely profitable , MS prefers have the taxpayers pay MS bills.For example : Critics slam Microsoft bridge as waste of stimulus moneyCritics of using stimulus money for the bridge say it would give the software giant a break on a pet project .
http : //www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/31/bridge.microsoft/index.html [ cnn.com ] Here 's another example : Microsoft To Get $ 100M Annual Tax Cut and Amnesty " Despite a $ 2.8 billion deficit , Washington State 's House Bill 3176 would provide Microsoft with an effective $ 100 million tax cut annually and possible amnesty on its $ 1.27 billion Nevada tax maneuverings .
Under current law , all of Microsoft 's worldwide licensing revenues of approximately $ 20.7 billion annually are taxable at .484 percent .
Under the new law , only the portion of software licenses sold to Washington state customers would be taxable .
Ironically , after slashing Microsoft 's tax burden , HB3176 directs the Department of Revenue to crack down on 'abusive tax transactions ' like those in Nevada -- except for a loophole that may provide Microsoft amnesty on its twelve year practice .
The bill 's lead sponsor is Ross Hunter of Medina , home to Bill Gates and a number of current and former Microsoft billionaires and multi-millionaires , and other areas around Microsoft 's corporate campus .
" http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/15/1957205/Microsoft-To-Get-100M-Annual-Tax-Cut-and-Amnesty [ slashdot.org ] And now , again , msft is asking the US taxpayer to pick up the bill for what should be msft 's expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although MS is hugely profitable, MS prefers have the taxpayers pay MS bills.For example:Critics slam Microsoft bridge as waste of stimulus moneyCritics of using stimulus money for the bridge say it would give the software giant a break on a pet project.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/31/bridge.microsoft/index.html [cnn.com]Here's another example:Microsoft To Get $100M Annual Tax Cut and Amnesty"Despite a $2.8 billion deficit, Washington State's House Bill 3176 would provide Microsoft with an effective $100 million tax cut annually and possible amnesty on its $1.27 billion Nevada tax maneuverings.
Under current law, all of Microsoft's worldwide licensing revenues of approximately $20.7 billion annually are taxable at .484 percent.
Under the new law, only the portion of software licenses sold to Washington state customers would be taxable.
Ironically, after slashing Microsoft's tax burden, HB3176 directs the Department of Revenue to crack down on 'abusive tax transactions' like those in Nevada -- except for a loophole that may provide Microsoft amnesty on its twelve year practice.
The bill's lead sponsor is Ross Hunter of Medina, home to Bill Gates and a number of current and former Microsoft billionaires and multi-millionaires, and other areas around Microsoft's corporate campus.
" http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/15/1957205/Microsoft-To-Get-100M-Annual-Tax-Cut-and-Amnesty [slashdot.org]And now, again, msft is asking the US taxpayer to pick up the bill for what should be msft's expense.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339956</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1267546620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not if the consumer doesn't buy Microsoft products it won't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not if the consumer does n't buy Microsoft products it wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not if the consumer doesn't buy Microsoft products it won't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336640</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>DarkKnightRadick</author>
	<datestamp>1267528440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you love the government?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you love the government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you love the government?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342442</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267611780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you got that wrong. Not the users should be taxed. But the ones who made the operating system. Based on the amount of users of the OS, times the amount of found infections of it.</p><p>It&rsquo;s analog to the environmental tax for companies who leave scorched earth... (Does the US have such a tax? I bet not.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you got that wrong .
Not the users should be taxed .
But the ones who made the operating system .
Based on the amount of users of the OS , times the amount of found infections of it.It    s analog to the environmental tax for companies who leave scorched earth... ( Does the US have such a tax ?
I bet not .
: / )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you got that wrong.
Not the users should be taxed.
But the ones who made the operating system.
Based on the amount of users of the OS, times the amount of found infections of it.It’s analog to the environmental tax for companies who leave scorched earth... (Does the US have such a tax?
I bet not.
:/)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336664</id>
	<title>In other words,</title>
	<author>overshoot</author>
	<datestamp>1267528500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get the rest of us to underwrite cleaning up after Microsoft's sloppy software.<p>

It's not so much the principle of the thing as it is writing into law Microsoft's PR message that bugs in their software are "Computer Problems" or "Internet Problems."</p><p>

On the other hand, if the charges were discounted for running non-MS systems, I might change my mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the rest of us to underwrite cleaning up after Microsoft 's sloppy software .
It 's not so much the principle of the thing as it is writing into law Microsoft 's PR message that bugs in their software are " Computer Problems " or " Internet Problems .
" On the other hand , if the charges were discounted for running non-MS systems , I might change my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the rest of us to underwrite cleaning up after Microsoft's sloppy software.
It's not so much the principle of the thing as it is writing into law Microsoft's PR message that bugs in their software are "Computer Problems" or "Internet Problems.
"

On the other hand, if the charges were discounted for running non-MS systems, I might change my mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337020</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are already paid.</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267529820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, id rather the government stay out of my business.. If you demand they 'fix the problem', then they will be in your face every second you are online and you wont like the result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , id rather the government stay out of my business.. If you demand they 'fix the problem ' , then they will be in your face every second you are online and you wont like the result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, id rather the government stay out of my business.. If you demand they 'fix the problem', then they will be in your face every second you are online and you wont like the result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342304</id>
	<title>FU MS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267610820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS made the bl**dy awful O/S, I chose not to use it and signed with Jesus-Jobs and the Loopy-Linus, now I might be asked to pay to have MS' mess cleaned up?!?!?</p><p>MS can kiss the hairiest part of my big, fat white ass!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS made the bl * * dy awful O/S , I chose not to use it and signed with Jesus-Jobs and the Loopy-Linus , now I might be asked to pay to have MS ' mess cleaned up ? ! ? !
? MS can kiss the hairiest part of my big , fat white ass ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS made the bl**dy awful O/S, I chose not to use it and signed with Jesus-Jobs and the Loopy-Linus, now I might be asked to pay to have MS' mess cleaned up?!?!
?MS can kiss the hairiest part of my big, fat white ass!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340776</id>
	<title>God is an Iron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267554300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft suggest a Net tax to clean...oh God, the irony.The overwhelming majority of infected computers run Microsoft operating systems, which, if the code had been done right from the get, would resist or would be outright immune to infection. Put the tax square on Microsoft, which is itself a US national security risk just by its very existence, if not a planetary security risk and call it a day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft suggest a Net tax to clean...oh God , the irony.The overwhelming majority of infected computers run Microsoft operating systems , which , if the code had been done right from the get , would resist or would be outright immune to infection .
Put the tax square on Microsoft , which is itself a US national security risk just by its very existence , if not a planetary security risk and call it a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft suggest a Net tax to clean...oh God, the irony.The overwhelming majority of infected computers run Microsoft operating systems, which, if the code had been done right from the get, would resist or would be outright immune to infection.
Put the tax square on Microsoft, which is itself a US national security risk just by its very existence, if not a planetary security risk and call it a day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336730</id>
	<title>Fix health care first you FUCKER</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1267528800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about anyone else here, but I would be livid if where I lived I was taxed to disinfect computers while healthcare was a mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about anyone else here , but I would be livid if where I lived I was taxed to disinfect computers while healthcare was a mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about anyone else here, but I would be livid if where I lived I was taxed to disinfect computers while healthcare was a mess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337192</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Microsoft operating systems</title>
	<author>bobs666</author>
	<datestamp>1267530360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It should be more then a tax.
<br> <br>
Its criminal that "Microsoft's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing" should try to pawn his failures
on the rest of us.  And then to ask us to Pay.  I think
its time for a reality check.

<br> <br>

Should Mac or Linux users get a tax credit?
Better yet this should be a Microsoft payed tax.
Payed directly by Microsoft. This save the tax payers the cost of collection from the general clue less public.  And you might as well bill Microsoft directly for all the systems in the fielded to date.
<br> <br>
Note: by clue less public, I mean that we are not empowered to fix the problems, And that the public does not understand that this should be the norm.
<br> <br>
I mean there is no source code and no environment for code maintance provided.
<br> <br>
How can someone even call this a computer, It more a "Virus Hive" or at best a "Toaster".  Its designed to sell you more software.  Just like a Toaster is designed to sell you bread.  A Microsoft box
is all that useful without more software.
<br> <br>
Don't go thinking you can read the web with a
blank Microsoft box.
You have to buy access to that as well.
An there are many cheaper things that will
get you to the web you payed for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be more then a tax .
Its criminal that " Microsoft 's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing " should try to pawn his failures on the rest of us .
And then to ask us to Pay .
I think its time for a reality check .
Should Mac or Linux users get a tax credit ?
Better yet this should be a Microsoft payed tax .
Payed directly by Microsoft .
This save the tax payers the cost of collection from the general clue less public .
And you might as well bill Microsoft directly for all the systems in the fielded to date .
Note : by clue less public , I mean that we are not empowered to fix the problems , And that the public does not understand that this should be the norm .
I mean there is no source code and no environment for code maintance provided .
How can someone even call this a computer , It more a " Virus Hive " or at best a " Toaster " .
Its designed to sell you more software .
Just like a Toaster is designed to sell you bread .
A Microsoft box is all that useful without more software .
Do n't go thinking you can read the web with a blank Microsoft box .
You have to buy access to that as well .
An there are many cheaper things that will get you to the web you payed for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be more then a tax.
Its criminal that "Microsoft's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing" should try to pawn his failures
on the rest of us.
And then to ask us to Pay.
I think
its time for a reality check.
Should Mac or Linux users get a tax credit?
Better yet this should be a Microsoft payed tax.
Payed directly by Microsoft.
This save the tax payers the cost of collection from the general clue less public.
And you might as well bill Microsoft directly for all the systems in the fielded to date.
Note: by clue less public, I mean that we are not empowered to fix the problems, And that the public does not understand that this should be the norm.
I mean there is no source code and no environment for code maintance provided.
How can someone even call this a computer, It more a "Virus Hive" or at best a "Toaster".
Its designed to sell you more software.
Just like a Toaster is designed to sell you bread.
A Microsoft box
is all that useful without more software.
Don't go thinking you can read the web with a
blank Microsoft box.
You have to buy access to that as well.
An there are many cheaper things that will
get you to the web you payed for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336938</id>
	<title>inspection and quarantine</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1267529520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This via door to door searches?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This via door to door searches ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This via door to door searches?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337534</id>
	<title>Windows is the Tax</title>
	<author>smist08</author>
	<datestamp>1267531740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought having to buy Windows was the tax. After all it allows all the malware in the first place. Why not just make Microsoft liable for its security vulnerabilities to pay for this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought having to buy Windows was the tax .
After all it allows all the malware in the first place .
Why not just make Microsoft liable for its security vulnerabilities to pay for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought having to buy Windows was the tax.
After all it allows all the malware in the first place.
Why not just make Microsoft liable for its security vulnerabilities to pay for this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340430</id>
	<title>In other words</title>
	<author>seeker\_1us</author>
	<datestamp>1267550880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft suggests having the government subsidize their shitty software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft suggests having the government subsidize their shitty software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft suggests having the government subsidize their shitty software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337758</id>
	<title>keep em clean?</title>
	<author>bjverzal</author>
	<datestamp>1267532820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a completely stupid idea.  Let's write software that is bug ridden, make it too complex for the average home user, then charge those same people to keep it in tip-top shape.  I guess, to play devil's advocate, there is a presedence in the auto-repair industry, home repair, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a completely stupid idea .
Let 's write software that is bug ridden , make it too complex for the average home user , then charge those same people to keep it in tip-top shape .
I guess , to play devil 's advocate , there is a presedence in the auto-repair industry , home repair , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a completely stupid idea.
Let's write software that is bug ridden, make it too complex for the average home user, then charge those same people to keep it in tip-top shape.
I guess, to play devil's advocate, there is a presedence in the auto-repair industry, home repair, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338064</id>
	<title>escrow their profits!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267534200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the same old same old... dump the financial risk onto the general public but keep the profits private while spewing out poorly tested crapware</p><p>I got an idea...let's put their "profits" into an escrow account until the crapware is mothballed (say 20+ years?). Pay to fix any defects, whether caused by malware or not, out of the escrow account. And that means recalling computers if necessary to reinstall a new, self consistent, functional OS. If there is anything left in the escrow account at the end of the process they can keep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the same old same old... dump the financial risk onto the general public but keep the profits private while spewing out poorly tested crapwareI got an idea...let 's put their " profits " into an escrow account until the crapware is mothballed ( say 20 + years ? ) .
Pay to fix any defects , whether caused by malware or not , out of the escrow account .
And that means recalling computers if necessary to reinstall a new , self consistent , functional OS .
If there is anything left in the escrow account at the end of the process they can keep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the same old same old... dump the financial risk onto the general public but keep the profits private while spewing out poorly tested crapwareI got an idea...let's put their "profits" into an escrow account until the crapware is mothballed (say 20+ years?).
Pay to fix any defects, whether caused by malware or not, out of the escrow account.
And that means recalling computers if necessary to reinstall a new, self consistent, functional OS.
If there is anything left in the escrow account at the end of the process they can keep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31343718</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>Dracophile</author>
	<datestamp>1267622640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course the MS veep suggests a "net tax" to clean up MS externalities. Yeesh.<p>

["Slow Down Cowboy", my left one...]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the MS veep suggests a " net tax " to clean up MS externalities .
Yeesh . [ " Slow Down Cowboy " , my left one... ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the MS veep suggests a "net tax" to clean up MS externalities.
Yeesh.

["Slow Down Cowboy", my left one...]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337136</id>
	<title>Pardon?</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1267530180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...and consider using 'general taxation' to pay for inspection and quarantine."</p><p>Inspection?</p><p>Of what, and by what means?</p><p>I hope this isn't what my paranoid, overly-cynical mind is translating it as.</p><p>Maybe the concern should not be so much about the idea of taxation, but what those taxes are actually going to be spent on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...and consider using 'general taxation ' to pay for inspection and quarantine .
" Inspection ? Of what , and by what means ? I hope this is n't what my paranoid , overly-cynical mind is translating it as.Maybe the concern should not be so much about the idea of taxation , but what those taxes are actually going to be spent on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...and consider using 'general taxation' to pay for inspection and quarantine.
"Inspection?Of what, and by what means?I hope this isn't what my paranoid, overly-cynical mind is translating it as.Maybe the concern should not be so much about the idea of taxation, but what those taxes are actually going to be spent on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337122</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1267530180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me translate what he was saying to normal instead of Microsoft speak.  "Making operating system is hard. We should get paid for our security holes that we fix ourselves." All he is promoting a possible revenue stream that Microsoft can get the government contract for or buy the company that gets it. This is really a Microsoft tax above and beyond the computer sale ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me translate what he was saying to normal instead of Microsoft speak .
" Making operating system is hard .
We should get paid for our security holes that we fix ourselves .
" All he is promoting a possible revenue stream that Microsoft can get the government contract for or buy the company that gets it .
This is really a Microsoft tax above and beyond the computer sale ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me translate what he was saying to normal instead of Microsoft speak.
"Making operating system is hard.
We should get paid for our security holes that we fix ourselves.
" All he is promoting a possible revenue stream that Microsoft can get the government contract for or buy the company that gets it.
This is really a Microsoft tax above and beyond the computer sale ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337228</id>
	<title>Re:Silly Microsoft</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1267530480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they are trying to get free money from the government.</p><p>Who do you think the government would give the tax money to?  The computer repair shops?  Not likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they are trying to get free money from the government.Who do you think the government would give the tax money to ?
The computer repair shops ?
Not likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they are trying to get free money from the government.Who do you think the government would give the tax money to?
The computer repair shops?
Not likely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336600</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267528260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would we be taxed for other people's mistakes?</p><p>This would just lead to people not caring and increase the amount of malware out there.<br>If it doesn't cost you anything to clean it up, then why would you worry about making a mess?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would we be taxed for other people 's mistakes ? This would just lead to people not caring and increase the amount of malware out there.If it does n't cost you anything to clean it up , then why would you worry about making a mess ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would we be taxed for other people's mistakes?This would just lead to people not caring and increase the amount of malware out there.If it doesn't cost you anything to clean it up, then why would you worry about making a mess?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336858</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually, we already do.  No matter how many "No, I won't effing fix your computer" T-shirts you own and wear, you still end up removing root-kits, eliminating spyware, and fixing damage done by the bits of malware for friends, relatives, or whoever.  'cause you "know about that stuff".</p><p>I already pay, I don't need to be "taxed".  Hell, I could use the excuse "I gave at the office" too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually , we already do .
No matter how many " No , I wo n't effing fix your computer " T-shirts you own and wear , you still end up removing root-kits , eliminating spyware , and fixing damage done by the bits of malware for friends , relatives , or whoever .
'cause you " know about that stuff " .I already pay , I do n't need to be " taxed " .
Hell , I could use the excuse " I gave at the office " too .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually, we already do.
No matter how many "No, I won't effing fix your computer" T-shirts you own and wear, you still end up removing root-kits, eliminating spyware, and fixing damage done by the bits of malware for friends, relatives, or whoever.
'cause you "know about that stuff".I already pay, I don't need to be "taxed".
Hell, I could use the excuse "I gave at the office" too ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336580</id>
	<title>Tax Microsoft operating systems</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1267528200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
A special "insecure software" levy on software responsible for more than 10\% of "owned" machines on the net would be more appropriate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A special " insecure software " levy on software responsible for more than 10 \ % of " owned " machines on the net would be more appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A special "insecure software" levy on software responsible for more than 10\% of "owned" machines on the net would be more appropriate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337768</id>
	<title>Uh, what?</title>
	<author>c</author>
	<datestamp>1267532880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this like if, say, the spring on my irony meter broke off and hit me in the eye and instead of suing the company that made the defective device, I sue the person who made the excessively ironic statement?</p><p>c.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this like if , say , the spring on my irony meter broke off and hit me in the eye and instead of suing the company that made the defective device , I sue the person who made the excessively ironic statement ? c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this like if, say, the spring on my irony meter broke off and hit me in the eye and instead of suing the company that made the defective device, I sue the person who made the excessively ironic statement?c.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337900</id>
	<title>Re:So long as I get a tax credit</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1267533480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, an opt-out tax.  More work for good citizens.  I'd prefer it structured as a fine for endangering others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , an opt-out tax .
More work for good citizens .
I 'd prefer it structured as a fine for endangering others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, an opt-out tax.
More work for good citizens.
I'd prefer it structured as a fine for endangering others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342568</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267612920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]I'd rather see ISPs voluntarily cracking down on spam-generating machines than be forced to pay a tax in an attempt to make up for my neighbor*'s ignorance. [/quote]</p><p>Why not fine the owners of spam generating machines to fund it, rather than using general taxation? That way, as long as you keep your PC malware free, you do not pay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] I 'd rather see ISPs voluntarily cracking down on spam-generating machines than be forced to pay a tax in an attempt to make up for my neighbor * 's ignorance .
[ /quote ] Why not fine the owners of spam generating machines to fund it , rather than using general taxation ?
That way , as long as you keep your PC malware free , you do not pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]I'd rather see ISPs voluntarily cracking down on spam-generating machines than be forced to pay a tax in an attempt to make up for my neighbor*'s ignorance.
[/quote]Why not fine the owners of spam generating machines to fund it, rather than using general taxation?
That way, as long as you keep your PC malware free, you do not pay.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336854</id>
	<title>Unfair characterisation</title>
	<author>Eth1csGrad1ent</author>
	<datestamp>1267529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTS - </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry...</p></div><p>I know most healthcare systems are <b>BAD</b>, but classifying them as malware is going a little far, isn't it ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTS - Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry...I know most healthcare systems are BAD , but classifying them as malware is going a little far , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTS - Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry...I know most healthcare systems are BAD, but classifying them as malware is going a little far, isn't it ?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339398</id>
	<title>Typical Government</title>
	<author>KalvinB</author>
	<datestamp>1267541760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>trying to create a bogeyman so they can convince the population that they need to be taxed so they can be protected from it.</p><p>The "collective stupid" is the most common.  It's amazing how many people are willing to give up money and liberty to be protected from all those "stupid" people out there.</p><p>"Look at all those dumb people who get computers infected and pay companies to fix the problem for them!  We need to tax them and let the government manage that industry."</p><p>And you can bet Microsoft won't be contracted out using that tax money to save all us "smart" people from the dumb people who get infected.</p><p>Also, pay no mind to the fact that the massive botnets are largely in countries not affected by taxes imposed by the US government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>trying to create a bogeyman so they can convince the population that they need to be taxed so they can be protected from it.The " collective stupid " is the most common .
It 's amazing how many people are willing to give up money and liberty to be protected from all those " stupid " people out there .
" Look at all those dumb people who get computers infected and pay companies to fix the problem for them !
We need to tax them and let the government manage that industry .
" And you can bet Microsoft wo n't be contracted out using that tax money to save all us " smart " people from the dumb people who get infected.Also , pay no mind to the fact that the massive botnets are largely in countries not affected by taxes imposed by the US government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>trying to create a bogeyman so they can convince the population that they need to be taxed so they can be protected from it.The "collective stupid" is the most common.
It's amazing how many people are willing to give up money and liberty to be protected from all those "stupid" people out there.
"Look at all those dumb people who get computers infected and pay companies to fix the problem for them!
We need to tax them and let the government manage that industry.
"And you can bet Microsoft won't be contracted out using that tax money to save all us "smart" people from the dumb people who get infected.Also, pay no mind to the fact that the massive botnets are largely in countries not affected by taxes imposed by the US government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336840</id>
	<title>too big to succeed</title>
	<author>thrillseeker</author>
	<datestamp>1267529220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>when you've become so big that you can viably get the government to forcibly extract money from people to facilitate you keeping your market share</htmltext>
<tokenext>when you 've become so big that you can viably get the government to forcibly extract money from people to facilitate you keeping your market share</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when you've become so big that you can viably get the government to forcibly extract money from people to facilitate you keeping your market share</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337992</id>
	<title>Re:In other words,</title>
	<author>exomondo</author>
	<datestamp>1267533780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not so much the principle of the thing as it is writing into law Microsoft's PR message that bugs in their software are "Computer Problems" or "Internet Problems."</p></div><p>But most of it is. Do you really think the majority of malware/viruses/spyware is installed and passed on through software exploits as opposed to social engineering?</p><p>If everyone ran linux they'd run as root because they couldn't be bothered with the 'annoyance' of sudo the same as with Vista/7 and UAC, so we'd be in the same situation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not so much the principle of the thing as it is writing into law Microsoft 's PR message that bugs in their software are " Computer Problems " or " Internet Problems .
" But most of it is .
Do you really think the majority of malware/viruses/spyware is installed and passed on through software exploits as opposed to social engineering ? If everyone ran linux they 'd run as root because they could n't be bothered with the 'annoyance ' of sudo the same as with Vista/7 and UAC , so we 'd be in the same situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not so much the principle of the thing as it is writing into law Microsoft's PR message that bugs in their software are "Computer Problems" or "Internet Problems.
"But most of it is.
Do you really think the majority of malware/viruses/spyware is installed and passed on through software exploits as opposed to social engineering?If everyone ran linux they'd run as root because they couldn't be bothered with the 'annoyance' of sudo the same as with Vista/7 and UAC, so we'd be in the same situation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338584</id>
	<title>A tax on stupidity.</title>
	<author>Alcoholist</author>
	<datestamp>1267536480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell of a thing to ask, socialize the stupidity of a private company and of its legions of careless customers. How do I get in on a deal like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell of a thing to ask , socialize the stupidity of a private company and of its legions of careless customers .
How do I get in on a deal like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell of a thing to ask, socialize the stupidity of a private company and of its legions of careless customers.
How do I get in on a deal like that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341506</id>
	<title>Right...</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1267647300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right...if you want to run Windows without antivirus, you better just not connect to the Internet, and you'd best have auto-play turned off.

</p><p>Sitting across the room from me is a very IT-savvy person who - just yesterday - browsed to a business-related website. Only to have Kaspersky pop up and notify her that the website had been hacked and wanted to download a trojan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right...if you want to run Windows without antivirus , you better just not connect to the Internet , and you 'd best have auto-play turned off .
Sitting across the room from me is a very IT-savvy person who - just yesterday - browsed to a business-related website .
Only to have Kaspersky pop up and notify her that the website had been hacked and wanted to download a trojan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right...if you want to run Windows without antivirus, you better just not connect to the Internet, and you'd best have auto-play turned off.
Sitting across the room from me is a very IT-savvy person who - just yesterday - browsed to a business-related website.
Only to have Kaspersky pop up and notify her that the website had been hacked and wanted to download a trojan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340224</id>
	<title>Re:So long as I get a tax credit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267548960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you miss the point.</p><p>The next step after this is to make it *illegal* to run anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you miss the point.The next step after this is to make it * illegal * to run anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you miss the point.The next step after this is to make it *illegal* to run anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337290</id>
	<title>Arrogance and Irony</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1267530720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me, or does it seem rather arrogant and ironic that the OS and browser creator behind 99\% of the worlds infected hosts is suggesting a tax to help rid the world of...infected hosts?</p><p>Nothing like a little "hey, look over here!" to get eyes and ears off root cause analysis.</p><p>God forbid we ask THAT company to simply make a more secure product.  What the fuck was I thinking...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or does it seem rather arrogant and ironic that the OS and browser creator behind 99 \ % of the worlds infected hosts is suggesting a tax to help rid the world of...infected hosts ? Nothing like a little " hey , look over here !
" to get eyes and ears off root cause analysis.God forbid we ask THAT company to simply make a more secure product .
What the fuck was I thinking.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or does it seem rather arrogant and ironic that the OS and browser creator behind 99\% of the worlds infected hosts is suggesting a tax to help rid the world of...infected hosts?Nothing like a little "hey, look over here!
" to get eyes and ears off root cause analysis.God forbid we ask THAT company to simply make a more secure product.
What the fuck was I thinking...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336760</id>
	<title>Shove it.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1267528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or they could take their brilliant little plan and shove it.  Then I will have to take care of my own security.  I know it sounds impossible for a simpleton like myself to accomplish, but I'm sure I'll manage somehow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they could take their brilliant little plan and shove it .
Then I will have to take care of my own security .
I know it sounds impossible for a simpleton like myself to accomplish , but I 'm sure I 'll manage somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they could take their brilliant little plan and shove it.
Then I will have to take care of my own security.
I know it sounds impossible for a simpleton like myself to accomplish, but I'm sure I'll manage somehow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340168</id>
	<title>Why Should I Have to Pay a Tax?</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1267548600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't sell a defective product that was wide open to malicious exploitation by design, Microsoft did. People already paid for that OS and MS made plenty of bucks from that; Bill's billions is proof of that. Let Bill spend some of that to clean up this mess before that arrogant, self-aggrandizing lackey Scott Charney asks me to spend the first dime of my money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't sell a defective product that was wide open to malicious exploitation by design , Microsoft did .
People already paid for that OS and MS made plenty of bucks from that ; Bill 's billions is proof of that .
Let Bill spend some of that to clean up this mess before that arrogant , self-aggrandizing lackey Scott Charney asks me to spend the first dime of my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't sell a defective product that was wide open to malicious exploitation by design, Microsoft did.
People already paid for that OS and MS made plenty of bucks from that; Bill's billions is proof of that.
Let Bill spend some of that to clean up this mess before that arrogant, self-aggrandizing lackey Scott Charney asks me to spend the first dime of my money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339564</id>
	<title>Brilliant!</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1267543440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is a great idea: increase corporate taxes on each hardware and software vendor every time their products are exploited. This pushes the costs of clean-ups onto those who've caused them, instead of those who have been violated by them. Eventually companies like Microsoft will be taxed out of existence.</p><p>Oh, he probably meant tax the citizens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a great idea : increase corporate taxes on each hardware and software vendor every time their products are exploited .
This pushes the costs of clean-ups onto those who 've caused them , instead of those who have been violated by them .
Eventually companies like Microsoft will be taxed out of existence.Oh , he probably meant tax the citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a great idea: increase corporate taxes on each hardware and software vendor every time their products are exploited.
This pushes the costs of clean-ups onto those who've caused them, instead of those who have been violated by them.
Eventually companies like Microsoft will be taxed out of existence.Oh, he probably meant tax the citizens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338106</id>
	<title>A Better Idea.....</title>
	<author>IHC Navistar</author>
	<datestamp>1267534320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should law-abiding citizens pay for the cost of dealing with criminals?</p><p>I can't believe how someone could manage to think that we should have to pay for this sort of thing. Instead of forcing us to cover the costs, the Government should:</p><p>1: SEIZE the criminal's house, car, boat, equity, stocks/securities, EVERYTHING, and put it up for sale, with 100\% of the proceeds going towards the cost of their prosecution. Anything left over will go to public schools. Leave them with ONLY the clothes on their backs. If they have children, then they live with the next closest relative. If none exists, then foster care. If one parent is not involved, then they get the cheapest apartment in town and they have to find a way to pay for it (unless of course, they help lock up their spouse, then the Judge can be nice to the uninvolved persons in exchange for helping prosecutors).</p><p>2: MANDATORY HARD LABOR. PERIOD. Nothing says "Hmmmmm, maybe I shouldn't do this" like the prospect of literally spending the next 30 years pulling weeds or breaking rocks. Or, if you really wanted to drive the point home, make them dig holes, then fill them back in, then dig holes and fill them back in over and over.</p><p>4: HEAVY FINES. Make such fines additional to their reimbursement of prosecution costs, but in such a way that the fines cannot be used to repay the State, but are added on to prosecutorial and investigative costs.</p><p>3: PERMANENT SEIZURE of *all* electronic equipment and/or property that falls under their control. This would prevent suspects from transferring their property and money to people that are not involved as a means of keeping out of the Government's hands should they be convicted and/or large fines be levvied against them. This would remove needed capital that convicts (such as Alan Ralsky) can use to start their business back up again when they get out of prison, or to allow them to run the business from prison. If the equipment belongs to someone else, it cannot be permanently seized unless the actual owner is convicted as well.</p><p>Of course, all of these things would happen if the suspect(s) are convicted.</p><p>I am, for one, getting really tired of seeing criminals being issued "State Restitution Fines" (here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia) that amount to $10-$20 for committing crimes that have thousands of dollars in damages. So, the States eats the bill, getting $20 to pay for everything from the initial report of the crime to the time they are released from custody.</p><p>Leave the criminals with deciding if living on Easy Street is worth the risk of living on The Street.</p><p>MAKE CRIMINALS PAY FOR THEIR COSTS, NOT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should law-abiding citizens pay for the cost of dealing with criminals ? I ca n't believe how someone could manage to think that we should have to pay for this sort of thing .
Instead of forcing us to cover the costs , the Government should : 1 : SEIZE the criminal 's house , car , boat , equity , stocks/securities , EVERYTHING , and put it up for sale , with 100 \ % of the proceeds going towards the cost of their prosecution .
Anything left over will go to public schools .
Leave them with ONLY the clothes on their backs .
If they have children , then they live with the next closest relative .
If none exists , then foster care .
If one parent is not involved , then they get the cheapest apartment in town and they have to find a way to pay for it ( unless of course , they help lock up their spouse , then the Judge can be nice to the uninvolved persons in exchange for helping prosecutors ) .2 : MANDATORY HARD LABOR .
PERIOD. Nothing says " Hmmmmm , maybe I should n't do this " like the prospect of literally spending the next 30 years pulling weeds or breaking rocks .
Or , if you really wanted to drive the point home , make them dig holes , then fill them back in , then dig holes and fill them back in over and over.4 : HEAVY FINES .
Make such fines additional to their reimbursement of prosecution costs , but in such a way that the fines can not be used to repay the State , but are added on to prosecutorial and investigative costs.3 : PERMANENT SEIZURE of * all * electronic equipment and/or property that falls under their control .
This would prevent suspects from transferring their property and money to people that are not involved as a means of keeping out of the Government 's hands should they be convicted and/or large fines be levvied against them .
This would remove needed capital that convicts ( such as Alan Ralsky ) can use to start their business back up again when they get out of prison , or to allow them to run the business from prison .
If the equipment belongs to someone else , it can not be permanently seized unless the actual owner is convicted as well.Of course , all of these things would happen if the suspect ( s ) are convicted.I am , for one , getting really tired of seeing criminals being issued " State Restitution Fines " ( here in the People 's Republik of Kalifornia ) that amount to $ 10- $ 20 for committing crimes that have thousands of dollars in damages .
So , the States eats the bill , getting $ 20 to pay for everything from the initial report of the crime to the time they are released from custody.Leave the criminals with deciding if living on Easy Street is worth the risk of living on The Street.MAKE CRIMINALS PAY FOR THEIR COSTS , NOT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should law-abiding citizens pay for the cost of dealing with criminals?I can't believe how someone could manage to think that we should have to pay for this sort of thing.
Instead of forcing us to cover the costs, the Government should:1: SEIZE the criminal's house, car, boat, equity, stocks/securities, EVERYTHING, and put it up for sale, with 100\% of the proceeds going towards the cost of their prosecution.
Anything left over will go to public schools.
Leave them with ONLY the clothes on their backs.
If they have children, then they live with the next closest relative.
If none exists, then foster care.
If one parent is not involved, then they get the cheapest apartment in town and they have to find a way to pay for it (unless of course, they help lock up their spouse, then the Judge can be nice to the uninvolved persons in exchange for helping prosecutors).2: MANDATORY HARD LABOR.
PERIOD. Nothing says "Hmmmmm, maybe I shouldn't do this" like the prospect of literally spending the next 30 years pulling weeds or breaking rocks.
Or, if you really wanted to drive the point home, make them dig holes, then fill them back in, then dig holes and fill them back in over and over.4: HEAVY FINES.
Make such fines additional to their reimbursement of prosecution costs, but in such a way that the fines cannot be used to repay the State, but are added on to prosecutorial and investigative costs.3: PERMANENT SEIZURE of *all* electronic equipment and/or property that falls under their control.
This would prevent suspects from transferring their property and money to people that are not involved as a means of keeping out of the Government's hands should they be convicted and/or large fines be levvied against them.
This would remove needed capital that convicts (such as Alan Ralsky) can use to start their business back up again when they get out of prison, or to allow them to run the business from prison.
If the equipment belongs to someone else, it cannot be permanently seized unless the actual owner is convicted as well.Of course, all of these things would happen if the suspect(s) are convicted.I am, for one, getting really tired of seeing criminals being issued "State Restitution Fines" (here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia) that amount to $10-$20 for committing crimes that have thousands of dollars in damages.
So, the States eats the bill, getting $20 to pay for everything from the initial report of the crime to the time they are released from custody.Leave the criminals with deciding if living on Easy Street is worth the risk of living on The Street.MAKE CRIMINALS PAY FOR THEIR COSTS, NOT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339948</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>GDgonzo</author>
	<datestamp>1267546560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about your "rights" end where mine begin....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about your " rights " end where mine begin... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about your "rights" end where mine begin....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336716</id>
	<title>Sure, Why not</title>
	<author>CSHARP123</author>
	<datestamp>1267528800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Majority of the infected machines run MS software. Let MS pay one quarter of their revenue as the tax. This helps everybody in the world.
Follow Bill Gates MS and do good to the world like him</htmltext>
<tokenext>Majority of the infected machines run MS software .
Let MS pay one quarter of their revenue as the tax .
This helps everybody in the world .
Follow Bill Gates MS and do good to the world like him</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Majority of the infected machines run MS software.
Let MS pay one quarter of their revenue as the tax.
This helps everybody in the world.
Follow Bill Gates MS and do good to the world like him</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31348062</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1267642800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because legislation of social ills has always had questionable success before.  By making that law, now you require businesses to bear the cost of implementing whatever monitoring standards the government decides on (the cost of which is ultimately born by the consumer) -- effectively punishing them and us for the new requirements.
<p>

Alternatively, it's another nugget of power to hand the federal government if they're to be the ones doing the monitoring.  And that costs all taxpayers.
</p><p>
I'd rather see ISPs start to do this because it's in their own best interest (and it is -- less bandwidth usage, better reputation), without being forced to by government decree.  If the ISPs want to include a penalty in their service agreement for spam-generating systems, that would be great.  If the government requires it... not so good.  The government needs to stay out of matters social and technical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because legislation of social ills has always had questionable success before .
By making that law , now you require businesses to bear the cost of implementing whatever monitoring standards the government decides on ( the cost of which is ultimately born by the consumer ) -- effectively punishing them and us for the new requirements .
Alternatively , it 's another nugget of power to hand the federal government if they 're to be the ones doing the monitoring .
And that costs all taxpayers .
I 'd rather see ISPs start to do this because it 's in their own best interest ( and it is -- less bandwidth usage , better reputation ) , without being forced to by government decree .
If the ISPs want to include a penalty in their service agreement for spam-generating systems , that would be great .
If the government requires it... not so good .
The government needs to stay out of matters social and technical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because legislation of social ills has always had questionable success before.
By making that law, now you require businesses to bear the cost of implementing whatever monitoring standards the government decides on (the cost of which is ultimately born by the consumer) -- effectively punishing them and us for the new requirements.
Alternatively, it's another nugget of power to hand the federal government if they're to be the ones doing the monitoring.
And that costs all taxpayers.
I'd rather see ISPs start to do this because it's in their own best interest (and it is -- less bandwidth usage, better reputation), without being forced to by government decree.
If the ISPs want to include a penalty in their service agreement for spam-generating systems, that would be great.
If the government requires it... not so good.
The government needs to stay out of matters social and technical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1267528440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who do not have children to send to school, or oppose the wars, or do not drive cars do not get a tax credit.</p><p>Taxes are a collective action, not an individual purchase.</p><p>Then again, I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen given our legislators' feigned misunderstanding of progressive taxation or Keynesian spending.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who do not have children to send to school , or oppose the wars , or do not drive cars do not get a tax credit.Taxes are a collective action , not an individual purchase.Then again , I would n't be surprised to see that happen given our legislators ' feigned misunderstanding of progressive taxation or Keynesian spending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who do not have children to send to school, or oppose the wars, or do not drive cars do not get a tax credit.Taxes are a collective action, not an individual purchase.Then again, I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen given our legislators' feigned misunderstanding of progressive taxation or Keynesian spending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338308</id>
	<title>Re:I see how this works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267535280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It already sounded like a stupid idea but seen over your way it gets ultimate stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It already sounded like a stupid idea but seen over your way it gets ultimate stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It already sounded like a stupid idea but seen over your way it gets ultimate stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31349256</id>
	<title>Re:why not a fine instead</title>
	<author>NiteShaed</author>
	<datestamp>1267648620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that analogy is flawed.  If your car is stolen, and used to rob a bank, of course you're not charged with being an accessory to the crime.  If your car is vandalized though, say someone smashes your headlights out, and you then go out for a ride, you absolutely will get a ticket for a safety violation.  You didn't break out the headlights yourself, and if they catch the guy that did it he'll be charged with the vandalism, but in the meantime you have a responsibility to fix that damage before you take that car back out onto public roads again.</p><p>If a fine were levied against a user, it's not because they DDOSd Citi Bank, it's because they're operating a machine that's "unsafe", and capable of causing further damage or infection to other systems....</p><p>That said, turing\_m's comment above about being given a warning first and being fined only if the user doesn't do anything about it makes perfect sense, and would probably work nicely in this kind of situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that analogy is flawed .
If your car is stolen , and used to rob a bank , of course you 're not charged with being an accessory to the crime .
If your car is vandalized though , say someone smashes your headlights out , and you then go out for a ride , you absolutely will get a ticket for a safety violation .
You did n't break out the headlights yourself , and if they catch the guy that did it he 'll be charged with the vandalism , but in the meantime you have a responsibility to fix that damage before you take that car back out onto public roads again.If a fine were levied against a user , it 's not because they DDOSd Citi Bank , it 's because they 're operating a machine that 's " unsafe " , and capable of causing further damage or infection to other systems....That said , turing \ _m 's comment above about being given a warning first and being fined only if the user does n't do anything about it makes perfect sense , and would probably work nicely in this kind of situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that analogy is flawed.
If your car is stolen, and used to rob a bank, of course you're not charged with being an accessory to the crime.
If your car is vandalized though, say someone smashes your headlights out, and you then go out for a ride, you absolutely will get a ticket for a safety violation.
You didn't break out the headlights yourself, and if they catch the guy that did it he'll be charged with the vandalism, but in the meantime you have a responsibility to fix that damage before you take that car back out onto public roads again.If a fine were levied against a user, it's not because they DDOSd Citi Bank, it's because they're operating a machine that's "unsafe", and capable of causing further damage or infection to other systems....That said, turing\_m's comment above about being given a warning first and being fined only if the user doesn't do anything about it makes perfect sense, and would probably work nicely in this kind of situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339518</id>
	<title>"Interesting" is the new "terrifying," apparently.</title>
	<author>bistromath007</author>
	<datestamp>1267543020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm really going to enjoy tax assessors rifling through all my shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really going to enjoy tax assessors rifling through all my shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really going to enjoy tax assessors rifling through all my shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337174</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>future assassin</author>
	<datestamp>1267530300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A corporation builds an OS that is on 90\% of all personal computers and is the root entry/cause for most of the viruses out there but they have no desire to make it secure so they just want the gov to introduce a tax onto the same consumer they sold this OS to? WTF?</p><p>Simpler answer would be for the GOV to create a mailing compaign advising the people to switch to a more securely designed OS to save on taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A corporation builds an OS that is on 90 \ % of all personal computers and is the root entry/cause for most of the viruses out there but they have no desire to make it secure so they just want the gov to introduce a tax onto the same consumer they sold this OS to ?
WTF ? Simpler answer would be for the GOV to create a mailing compaign advising the people to switch to a more securely designed OS to save on taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A corporation builds an OS that is on 90\% of all personal computers and is the root entry/cause for most of the viruses out there but they have no desire to make it secure so they just want the gov to introduce a tax onto the same consumer they sold this OS to?
WTF?Simpler answer would be for the GOV to create a mailing compaign advising the people to switch to a more securely designed OS to save on taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336578</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267528200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention all the free antivirus tools out there.  Really no excuse to not have some sort of "coverage"--unlike health care in the analogy.</p><p>Frankly, this seems like a waste of tax dollars. I didn't see anything mentioned in the article that can't be done with free tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention all the free antivirus tools out there .
Really no excuse to not have some sort of " coverage " --unlike health care in the analogy.Frankly , this seems like a waste of tax dollars .
I did n't see anything mentioned in the article that ca n't be done with free tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention all the free antivirus tools out there.
Really no excuse to not have some sort of "coverage"--unlike health care in the analogy.Frankly, this seems like a waste of tax dollars.
I didn't see anything mentioned in the article that can't be done with free tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338020</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1267533960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many mac users are not going to enter in their password when prompted to? The belief that "Apple/Mac is safe and cannot get virus" is totally wrong. That is what the average computer user believes. Even though the trojan/malware prompts the user for their password, the user is going to install the trojan/malware because they (falsely) believe that since they use a mac, trojas/viruses/malware is not a problem for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many mac users are not going to enter in their password when prompted to ?
The belief that " Apple/Mac is safe and can not get virus " is totally wrong .
That is what the average computer user believes .
Even though the trojan/malware prompts the user for their password , the user is going to install the trojan/malware because they ( falsely ) believe that since they use a mac , trojas/viruses/malware is not a problem for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many mac users are not going to enter in their password when prompted to?
The belief that "Apple/Mac is safe and cannot get virus" is totally wrong.
That is what the average computer user believes.
Even though the trojan/malware prompts the user for their password, the user is going to install the trojan/malware because they (falsely) believe that since they use a mac, trojas/viruses/malware is not a problem for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336736</id>
	<title>Tax rebate</title>
	<author>TheSimkin</author>
	<datestamp>1267528860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For running not running windows?

or tax surcharge for running windows?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For running not running windows ?
or tax surcharge for running windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For running not running windows?
or tax surcharge for running windows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338786</id>
	<title>I don't get to choose my body's operating system.</title>
	<author>TwinkieStix</author>
	<datestamp>1267537500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between Health Care and Computer Security is that I don't get to choose my body's operating system, and I have limited control over the hardware and software in my body (short of diet, cleanliness, and exercise, but not genetic issues, or living &ldquo;malware&rdquo; from other humans).  If I have a living virus, I need to clean it, else spread it to others and then die.  On the other hand, a computer virus is not a life or death problem, and some users chose to run systems that are more susceptible to viruses only because it is more convenient or the cost to learn is too high for them.  In other words, the opportunity cost associated with being completely virus-free is higher than the value of the convenience of not having to be bothered worrying.</p><p>The free market is fully capable of controlling viruses in computers up to the extent that it feels that they need to be dealt with.  Government-sponsored virus cleaning will attempt to completely eradicate viruses at all cost (or whatever cost it deems necessary).  While we have the same issues with health care, I think more people can agree that the life of a human is a lot more worth the extra work than the life of a machine or network.  A certain acceptable level of community virus activity is cheaper than attempting to completely eradicate viruses or the cost of a bureaucracy that attempts to control that activity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between Health Care and Computer Security is that I do n't get to choose my body 's operating system , and I have limited control over the hardware and software in my body ( short of diet , cleanliness , and exercise , but not genetic issues , or living    malware    from other humans ) .
If I have a living virus , I need to clean it , else spread it to others and then die .
On the other hand , a computer virus is not a life or death problem , and some users chose to run systems that are more susceptible to viruses only because it is more convenient or the cost to learn is too high for them .
In other words , the opportunity cost associated with being completely virus-free is higher than the value of the convenience of not having to be bothered worrying.The free market is fully capable of controlling viruses in computers up to the extent that it feels that they need to be dealt with .
Government-sponsored virus cleaning will attempt to completely eradicate viruses at all cost ( or whatever cost it deems necessary ) .
While we have the same issues with health care , I think more people can agree that the life of a human is a lot more worth the extra work than the life of a machine or network .
A certain acceptable level of community virus activity is cheaper than attempting to completely eradicate viruses or the cost of a bureaucracy that attempts to control that activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between Health Care and Computer Security is that I don't get to choose my body's operating system, and I have limited control over the hardware and software in my body (short of diet, cleanliness, and exercise, but not genetic issues, or living “malware” from other humans).
If I have a living virus, I need to clean it, else spread it to others and then die.
On the other hand, a computer virus is not a life or death problem, and some users chose to run systems that are more susceptible to viruses only because it is more convenient or the cost to learn is too high for them.
In other words, the opportunity cost associated with being completely virus-free is higher than the value of the convenience of not having to be bothered worrying.The free market is fully capable of controlling viruses in computers up to the extent that it feels that they need to be dealt with.
Government-sponsored virus cleaning will attempt to completely eradicate viruses at all cost (or whatever cost it deems necessary).
While we have the same issues with health care, I think more people can agree that the life of a human is a lot more worth the extra work than the life of a machine or network.
A certain acceptable level of community virus activity is cheaper than attempting to completely eradicate viruses or the cost of a bureaucracy that attempts to control that activity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336906</id>
	<title>Re:Why blame Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267529460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are rightly showing their concern and upset at this because it's because Microsoft  floating the idea of using a tax on everyone to "fix" their products weaknesses rather than them actually fixing the loopholes themselves, not that everyone loves those taking advantage of those chinks in the armor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are rightly showing their concern and upset at this because it 's because Microsoft floating the idea of using a tax on everyone to " fix " their products weaknesses rather than them actually fixing the loopholes themselves , not that everyone loves those taking advantage of those chinks in the armor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are rightly showing their concern and upset at this because it's because Microsoft  floating the idea of using a tax on everyone to "fix" their products weaknesses rather than them actually fixing the loopholes themselves, not that everyone loves those taking advantage of those chinks in the armor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338182</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Tromad</author>
	<datestamp>1267534680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yah I have no children, yet I still pay property taxes on brand new luxury schools (how many elementary schools are needed within a square mile?). Not only that, but some of the schools are used for Church services on weekends, which if it isn't illegal it should be. You could try to convince me that it is worth it for an educated society, but first you would have to convince me our society is actually educated (I would describe it more as functionally retarded).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yah I have no children , yet I still pay property taxes on brand new luxury schools ( how many elementary schools are needed within a square mile ? ) .
Not only that , but some of the schools are used for Church services on weekends , which if it is n't illegal it should be .
You could try to convince me that it is worth it for an educated society , but first you would have to convince me our society is actually educated ( I would describe it more as functionally retarded ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yah I have no children, yet I still pay property taxes on brand new luxury schools (how many elementary schools are needed within a square mile?).
Not only that, but some of the schools are used for Church services on weekends, which if it isn't illegal it should be.
You could try to convince me that it is worth it for an educated society, but first you would have to convince me our society is actually educated (I would describe it more as functionally retarded).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338048</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267534080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes but if you have a gas guzzling SUV  on a toll road you will end up paying more taxes than somebody who is riding a bycicle.</p><p>So for once I agree with a microsoft person as long as the tax is related to the configuration, and typical use.</p><p>So for instance:<br>- Windows using phishing victim/person buying from spammers : 10 000$/year (s/he does not need the money anyway)<br>- Virus infected Windows using person: 5 000$/year<br>- Windows user: 1000$/year<br>- MacOS/X user: 500$/year<br>- Unsecured Linux user: 50$/year<br>- Reasonably secure linux user: 1$/year (let's be nice and supportive to the others)<br>- CP/M user: Senior discount no taxes.</p><p>It would solve quite a lot of issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes but if you have a gas guzzling SUV on a toll road you will end up paying more taxes than somebody who is riding a bycicle.So for once I agree with a microsoft person as long as the tax is related to the configuration , and typical use.So for instance : - Windows using phishing victim/person buying from spammers : 10 000 $ /year ( s/he does not need the money anyway ) - Virus infected Windows using person : 5 000 $ /year- Windows user : 1000 $ /year- MacOS/X user : 500 $ /year- Unsecured Linux user : 50 $ /year- Reasonably secure linux user : 1 $ /year ( let 's be nice and supportive to the others ) - CP/M user : Senior discount no taxes.It would solve quite a lot of issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes but if you have a gas guzzling SUV  on a toll road you will end up paying more taxes than somebody who is riding a bycicle.So for once I agree with a microsoft person as long as the tax is related to the configuration, and typical use.So for instance:- Windows using phishing victim/person buying from spammers : 10 000$/year (s/he does not need the money anyway)- Virus infected Windows using person: 5 000$/year- Windows user: 1000$/year- MacOS/X user: 500$/year- Unsecured Linux user: 50$/year- Reasonably secure linux user: 1$/year (let's be nice and supportive to the others)- CP/M user: Senior discount no taxes.It would solve quite a lot of issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337184</id>
	<title>'C' drive and registry.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267530360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* I always click the "advanced" button when I install software, because that's where they hide the fact that they're installing a bunch of extra shit I don't want.</p></div><p>And to change the default drive from 'C' to something else.</p><p>'C' drive for OS, other drives for applications. I don't know what good it'll do me because if the 'C' drive goes, so does the registry and I think just about all of my installations of applications would have to be installed again anyway. The  '.ini' file worked great in previous versions of Windows and OS/2 - geeze!</p><p>If the guy at MS who invented the registry is reading this, would you please commit Seppuku with a plastic picnic knife? Thank you.</p><p>Oh, you don't have to take out your family, the shame you brought on your family and ancestors for the next millennia is more than punishment enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* I always click the " advanced " button when I install software , because that 's where they hide the fact that they 're installing a bunch of extra shit I do n't want.And to change the default drive from 'C ' to something else .
'C ' drive for OS , other drives for applications .
I do n't know what good it 'll do me because if the 'C ' drive goes , so does the registry and I think just about all of my installations of applications would have to be installed again anyway .
The '.ini ' file worked great in previous versions of Windows and OS/2 - geeze ! If the guy at MS who invented the registry is reading this , would you please commit Seppuku with a plastic picnic knife ?
Thank you.Oh , you do n't have to take out your family , the shame you brought on your family and ancestors for the next millennia is more than punishment enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* I always click the "advanced" button when I install software, because that's where they hide the fact that they're installing a bunch of extra shit I don't want.And to change the default drive from 'C' to something else.
'C' drive for OS, other drives for applications.
I don't know what good it'll do me because if the 'C' drive goes, so does the registry and I think just about all of my installations of applications would have to be installed again anyway.
The  '.ini' file worked great in previous versions of Windows and OS/2 - geeze!If the guy at MS who invented the registry is reading this, would you please commit Seppuku with a plastic picnic knife?
Thank you.Oh, you don't have to take out your family, the shame you brought on your family and ancestors for the next millennia is more than punishment enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337908</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Sot32</author>
	<datestamp>1267533480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who do not have children to send to school, or oppose the wars, or do not drive cars do not get a tax credit.</p><p>Taxes are a collective action, not an individual purchase.</p><p>Then again, I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen given our legislators' feigned misunderstanding of progressive taxation or Keynesian spending.</p></div><p>Excellent points.  I agree wholeheartedly that something must be done to clean up the infected PCs, and that that is going to cost money and the money must come from somewhere.  It makes no sense to tax internet access across the board but, as you point out, that may be the end result.  Since the creator of Windows is clearly admitting that their OS is the problem, it makes more sense to tax purchases of Windows OR to tax internet access involving Windows-based systems.  Maybe both.</p><p>But I'm more interested to hear where that tax money would go.  Is the government going to establish a cleanup organization?  I hope not.  Will the money go to ISPs so that they can monitor for malicious activity and go door to door?  Will the ISPs just dispatch repair tickets to the local geek squad?  If you think about it, this could actually be a really cool opportunity to create some jobs.</p><p>At least until everyone decides that $3000 is too much to pay for an OS that's br0kun.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who do not have children to send to school , or oppose the wars , or do not drive cars do not get a tax credit.Taxes are a collective action , not an individual purchase.Then again , I would n't be surprised to see that happen given our legislators ' feigned misunderstanding of progressive taxation or Keynesian spending.Excellent points .
I agree wholeheartedly that something must be done to clean up the infected PCs , and that that is going to cost money and the money must come from somewhere .
It makes no sense to tax internet access across the board but , as you point out , that may be the end result .
Since the creator of Windows is clearly admitting that their OS is the problem , it makes more sense to tax purchases of Windows OR to tax internet access involving Windows-based systems .
Maybe both.But I 'm more interested to hear where that tax money would go .
Is the government going to establish a cleanup organization ?
I hope not .
Will the money go to ISPs so that they can monitor for malicious activity and go door to door ?
Will the ISPs just dispatch repair tickets to the local geek squad ?
If you think about it , this could actually be a really cool opportunity to create some jobs.At least until everyone decides that $ 3000 is too much to pay for an OS that 's br0kun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who do not have children to send to school, or oppose the wars, or do not drive cars do not get a tax credit.Taxes are a collective action, not an individual purchase.Then again, I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen given our legislators' feigned misunderstanding of progressive taxation or Keynesian spending.Excellent points.
I agree wholeheartedly that something must be done to clean up the infected PCs, and that that is going to cost money and the money must come from somewhere.
It makes no sense to tax internet access across the board but, as you point out, that may be the end result.
Since the creator of Windows is clearly admitting that their OS is the problem, it makes more sense to tax purchases of Windows OR to tax internet access involving Windows-based systems.
Maybe both.But I'm more interested to hear where that tax money would go.
Is the government going to establish a cleanup organization?
I hope not.
Will the money go to ISPs so that they can monitor for malicious activity and go door to door?
Will the ISPs just dispatch repair tickets to the local geek squad?
If you think about it, this could actually be a really cool opportunity to create some jobs.At least until everyone decides that $3000 is too much to pay for an OS that's br0kun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337582</id>
	<title>'Baddies'</title>
	<author>taradfong</author>
	<datestamp>1267531980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please do not use the word 'baddies'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do not use the word 'baddies' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please do not use the word 'baddies'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31349366</id>
	<title>Dear Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267649220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem does not lie with the users as much as the balant flaws in you security design.  There are a few simple rules that anyone learns is Systems Security 101.  First Users NEVER run as Admin.  second users nor applications can write to the systems directory.  Actually I think every IT person should be able to back-charge Microsoft for every cleaning of an infected system.  Think about we are the only industry that can't back-charge a vendor for selling a broken product.  If Microsoft was forced to pay out for damages to systems only then will they fix it.  The only reason it is still so broken is that so many are making money from it being broke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem does not lie with the users as much as the balant flaws in you security design .
There are a few simple rules that anyone learns is Systems Security 101 .
First Users NEVER run as Admin .
second users nor applications can write to the systems directory .
Actually I think every IT person should be able to back-charge Microsoft for every cleaning of an infected system .
Think about we are the only industry that ca n't back-charge a vendor for selling a broken product .
If Microsoft was forced to pay out for damages to systems only then will they fix it .
The only reason it is still so broken is that so many are making money from it being broke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem does not lie with the users as much as the balant flaws in you security design.
There are a few simple rules that anyone learns is Systems Security 101.
First Users NEVER run as Admin.
second users nor applications can write to the systems directory.
Actually I think every IT person should be able to back-charge Microsoft for every cleaning of an infected system.
Think about we are the only industry that can't back-charge a vendor for selling a broken product.
If Microsoft was forced to pay out for damages to systems only then will they fix it.
The only reason it is still so broken is that so many are making money from it being broke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337800</id>
	<title>Taxes Eh?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267533000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right now almost half of my paycheck (literally 43\%) goes towards paying federal and state taxes.
<br> <br>
My taxes pay for things like maintenance of state highways. Despite the fact that I drive a motorcycle and a lightweight car, my taxes pay to repair the damage done by those Californians that choose to commute in a 2 ton SUV or a Hummer 3.
<br> <br>
My taxes pay for studies in my local community, to determine what the root causes of particulate pollution are in areas nearby the beach. Despite the fact that I choose to live right next to the beach, and my sidewalk is constantly covered by sand, I judiciously sweep off my sidewalk every weekend. My taxes pay state professionals to determine where the sand is coming from (the beach, duh). My taxes also pay to sponsor programs to clean the sand off the nearby streets despite the fact that I already contribute to this cause because I take pride in where I live.
<br> <br>
My taxes pay for the CHP. My taxes pay the salaries of an executive department that, apparently, has nothing better to do at 2 in the morning than pull me over and harass me for an hour due to nothing more than, 'suspicious driving.' It doesn't matter that I was doing the responsible thing and acting as sober driver for all my friends, my taxes pay for my own harassment.
<br> <br>
My taxes pay to hold committees regarding the nuclear power plant operating in my area. At the local farmer's market, every time I hear a debate spark up over whether or not nuclear power is safe, I spend time, patiently, explaining to those spreading hysterics precisely why nuclear power is clean, safe energy. Specifically, I explain to them the safety procedures involved in nuclear power plant operation to ease their mind that the nearby power plant is not going to doom us all. Despite that, there are numerous protests about the power plant operating in my area. As a result, various bureaucratic agencies in my state hold public hearings (funded by my tax dollars) where they debate shutting one of the most successful nuclear power plants in the United States down due to public concern.
<br> <br>
I work my ass off every day, weekends included, to be a responsible citizen and to make my community a better place. I maintain multiple computers at home which run Ubuntu and which upon which I perform tedious maintenance to ensure that my boxes are not polluting the net. Despite this personal choice to be responsible, there are those in this country that propose a general population tax to fix other, irresponsible folks' f***-ups.
<br> <br>
You can feed me all the cliche lines about how taxes pay for a healthy society and healthy societies benefit everyone, but from where I stand, all that excuse looks like to me is a hand wavy way to say that if you live a responsible life, you are going to get boned. The American dream has taught me, in no small amount, that the best attitude to maintain towards the world is one of hedonism and the exploitation of others. Another general tax, levied not only on those that are irresponsible, but also levied on those that are responsible members of society, to pay for the plagues unleashed by those who are lazy and irresponsible is not just. Such a tax does not create a healthy society. Such a tax does not encourage responsibility or hard work. That kind of policy, from what I have seen, does nothing more than invite more parasites to come feed of off what could, otherwise, be classified as a healthy society.
<br> <br>
Sure, I sound like the typical ol' fogey that has nothing better to do than bitch about higher taxes. But I, for one, am tired of watching nearly half my paycheck buy and pay for the stupidity of the masses. To quote Adam Ryan:
<br> <br>
"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?"
<br> <br>
Well Microsoft, is he?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now almost half of my paycheck ( literally 43 \ % ) goes towards paying federal and state taxes .
My taxes pay for things like maintenance of state highways .
Despite the fact that I drive a motorcycle and a lightweight car , my taxes pay to repair the damage done by those Californians that choose to commute in a 2 ton SUV or a Hummer 3 .
My taxes pay for studies in my local community , to determine what the root causes of particulate pollution are in areas nearby the beach .
Despite the fact that I choose to live right next to the beach , and my sidewalk is constantly covered by sand , I judiciously sweep off my sidewalk every weekend .
My taxes pay state professionals to determine where the sand is coming from ( the beach , duh ) .
My taxes also pay to sponsor programs to clean the sand off the nearby streets despite the fact that I already contribute to this cause because I take pride in where I live .
My taxes pay for the CHP .
My taxes pay the salaries of an executive department that , apparently , has nothing better to do at 2 in the morning than pull me over and harass me for an hour due to nothing more than , 'suspicious driving .
' It does n't matter that I was doing the responsible thing and acting as sober driver for all my friends , my taxes pay for my own harassment .
My taxes pay to hold committees regarding the nuclear power plant operating in my area .
At the local farmer 's market , every time I hear a debate spark up over whether or not nuclear power is safe , I spend time , patiently , explaining to those spreading hysterics precisely why nuclear power is clean , safe energy .
Specifically , I explain to them the safety procedures involved in nuclear power plant operation to ease their mind that the nearby power plant is not going to doom us all .
Despite that , there are numerous protests about the power plant operating in my area .
As a result , various bureaucratic agencies in my state hold public hearings ( funded by my tax dollars ) where they debate shutting one of the most successful nuclear power plants in the United States down due to public concern .
I work my ass off every day , weekends included , to be a responsible citizen and to make my community a better place .
I maintain multiple computers at home which run Ubuntu and which upon which I perform tedious maintenance to ensure that my boxes are not polluting the net .
Despite this personal choice to be responsible , there are those in this country that propose a general population tax to fix other , irresponsible folks ' f * * * -ups .
You can feed me all the cliche lines about how taxes pay for a healthy society and healthy societies benefit everyone , but from where I stand , all that excuse looks like to me is a hand wavy way to say that if you live a responsible life , you are going to get boned .
The American dream has taught me , in no small amount , that the best attitude to maintain towards the world is one of hedonism and the exploitation of others .
Another general tax , levied not only on those that are irresponsible , but also levied on those that are responsible members of society , to pay for the plagues unleashed by those who are lazy and irresponsible is not just .
Such a tax does not create a healthy society .
Such a tax does not encourage responsibility or hard work .
That kind of policy , from what I have seen , does nothing more than invite more parasites to come feed of off what could , otherwise , be classified as a healthy society .
Sure , I sound like the typical ol ' fogey that has nothing better to do than bitch about higher taxes .
But I , for one , am tired of watching nearly half my paycheck buy and pay for the stupidity of the masses .
To quote Adam Ryan : " Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow ?
" Well Microsoft , is he ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now almost half of my paycheck (literally 43\%) goes towards paying federal and state taxes.
My taxes pay for things like maintenance of state highways.
Despite the fact that I drive a motorcycle and a lightweight car, my taxes pay to repair the damage done by those Californians that choose to commute in a 2 ton SUV or a Hummer 3.
My taxes pay for studies in my local community, to determine what the root causes of particulate pollution are in areas nearby the beach.
Despite the fact that I choose to live right next to the beach, and my sidewalk is constantly covered by sand, I judiciously sweep off my sidewalk every weekend.
My taxes pay state professionals to determine where the sand is coming from (the beach, duh).
My taxes also pay to sponsor programs to clean the sand off the nearby streets despite the fact that I already contribute to this cause because I take pride in where I live.
My taxes pay for the CHP.
My taxes pay the salaries of an executive department that, apparently, has nothing better to do at 2 in the morning than pull me over and harass me for an hour due to nothing more than, 'suspicious driving.
' It doesn't matter that I was doing the responsible thing and acting as sober driver for all my friends, my taxes pay for my own harassment.
My taxes pay to hold committees regarding the nuclear power plant operating in my area.
At the local farmer's market, every time I hear a debate spark up over whether or not nuclear power is safe, I spend time, patiently, explaining to those spreading hysterics precisely why nuclear power is clean, safe energy.
Specifically, I explain to them the safety procedures involved in nuclear power plant operation to ease their mind that the nearby power plant is not going to doom us all.
Despite that, there are numerous protests about the power plant operating in my area.
As a result, various bureaucratic agencies in my state hold public hearings (funded by my tax dollars) where they debate shutting one of the most successful nuclear power plants in the United States down due to public concern.
I work my ass off every day, weekends included, to be a responsible citizen and to make my community a better place.
I maintain multiple computers at home which run Ubuntu and which upon which I perform tedious maintenance to ensure that my boxes are not polluting the net.
Despite this personal choice to be responsible, there are those in this country that propose a general population tax to fix other, irresponsible folks' f***-ups.
You can feed me all the cliche lines about how taxes pay for a healthy society and healthy societies benefit everyone, but from where I stand, all that excuse looks like to me is a hand wavy way to say that if you live a responsible life, you are going to get boned.
The American dream has taught me, in no small amount, that the best attitude to maintain towards the world is one of hedonism and the exploitation of others.
Another general tax, levied not only on those that are irresponsible, but also levied on those that are responsible members of society, to pay for the plagues unleashed by those who are lazy and irresponsible is not just.
Such a tax does not create a healthy society.
Such a tax does not encourage responsibility or hard work.
That kind of policy, from what I have seen, does nothing more than invite more parasites to come feed of off what could, otherwise, be classified as a healthy society.
Sure, I sound like the typical ol' fogey that has nothing better to do than bitch about higher taxes.
But I, for one, am tired of watching nearly half my paycheck buy and pay for the stupidity of the masses.
To quote Adam Ryan:
 
"Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?
"
 
Well Microsoft, is he?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337512</id>
	<title>Re:Is this the same Government that created it?</title>
	<author>hclewk</author>
	<datestamp>1267531620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions? What cut of the ISP bill does the government get?</p></div><p>Income Tax. My effective income tax rate is about 20\%, so, since my $60 internet bill is not tax deductible, i'm paying about $15 to the federal government for my internet access. <i>Then</i>, you have comcast paying an additional 30\% of that income (minus whatever deductions they get) to the federal government as well. Also, just fyi, anything I buy online that is not tax deductible I'm also paying taxes on.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And are we talking about the same government that created the Internet, or is this monstrously incompetent government a different government?</p></div><p>Just because they can competently build IT infrastructure, doesn't mean that they can competently handle socio-economic issues of said infrastructure.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe if the government is so incompetent, we should outsource such vital functions as roads and the armed services.</p></div><p>First of all, being incompetent in one area does not mean they are incompetent in all areas. Secondly, state governments are in charge of roads, not the federal government. And finally, saying that since the federal government does a great job with the military, so they must do a great job with everything else, is like saying Michael Jordan must be one hell of a brain surgeon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions ?
What cut of the ISP bill does the government get ? Income Tax .
My effective income tax rate is about 20 \ % , so , since my $ 60 internet bill is not tax deductible , i 'm paying about $ 15 to the federal government for my internet access .
Then , you have comcast paying an additional 30 \ % of that income ( minus whatever deductions they get ) to the federal government as well .
Also , just fyi , anything I buy online that is not tax deductible I 'm also paying taxes on.And are we talking about the same government that created the Internet , or is this monstrously incompetent government a different government ? Just because they can competently build IT infrastructure , does n't mean that they can competently handle socio-economic issues of said infrastructure.Maybe if the government is so incompetent , we should outsource such vital functions as roads and the armed services.First of all , being incompetent in one area does not mean they are incompetent in all areas .
Secondly , state governments are in charge of roads , not the federal government .
And finally , saying that since the federal government does a great job with the military , so they must do a great job with everything else , is like saying Michael Jordan must be one hell of a brain surgeon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions?
What cut of the ISP bill does the government get?Income Tax.
My effective income tax rate is about 20\%, so, since my $60 internet bill is not tax deductible, i'm paying about $15 to the federal government for my internet access.
Then, you have comcast paying an additional 30\% of that income (minus whatever deductions they get) to the federal government as well.
Also, just fyi, anything I buy online that is not tax deductible I'm also paying taxes on.And are we talking about the same government that created the Internet, or is this monstrously incompetent government a different government?Just because they can competently build IT infrastructure, doesn't mean that they can competently handle socio-economic issues of said infrastructure.Maybe if the government is so incompetent, we should outsource such vital functions as roads and the armed services.First of all, being incompetent in one area does not mean they are incompetent in all areas.
Secondly, state governments are in charge of roads, not the federal government.
And finally, saying that since the federal government does a great job with the military, so they must do a great job with everything else, is like saying Michael Jordan must be one hell of a brain surgeon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337882</id>
	<title>Security Essentials</title>
	<author>Admodieus</author>
	<datestamp>1267533420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no reason for a Windows user not to be running anti-virus nowadays. Microsoft Security Essentials is so lightweight and unobtrusive that most users I install it for don't even know it's there. And it's free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no reason for a Windows user not to be running anti-virus nowadays .
Microsoft Security Essentials is so lightweight and unobtrusive that most users I install it for do n't even know it 's there .
And it 's free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no reason for a Windows user not to be running anti-virus nowadays.
Microsoft Security Essentials is so lightweight and unobtrusive that most users I install it for don't even know it's there.
And it's free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338690</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>slashqwerty</author>
	<datestamp>1267536900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely people who use trusted computing will get a tax deduction.  Why do you think Microsoft's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing is proposing this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely people who use trusted computing will get a tax deduction .
Why do you think Microsoft 's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing is proposing this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely people who use trusted computing will get a tax deduction.
Why do you think Microsoft's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing is proposing this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336970</id>
	<title>Wordplay is no reasoning.</title>
	<author>eepok</author>
	<datestamp>1267529700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We may *refer* to it as computer "care" and computer "health", but that doesn't mean it's anywhere near the importance of human healthcare. I think it's more in line with vehicle care than human health care and in that same vein, should we then have universal car repair? Computers are devices upon which we rely greatly.</p><p>There should be no universal tax for someone (oh, gee... maybe Microsoft?) to delve into our computer, stumbling across private information, all in the name of "health". If I can fix my own car without cost to anyone, if I can fix my own computer without cost to anyone, then I will do it.</p><p>I think the previous posters have it right: Tie an optional service to the ISP and call it a day. Have such a service provide regular scans and alerts. In severe cases, quarantine the computer. But it should ALL be optional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We may * refer * to it as computer " care " and computer " health " , but that does n't mean it 's anywhere near the importance of human healthcare .
I think it 's more in line with vehicle care than human health care and in that same vein , should we then have universal car repair ?
Computers are devices upon which we rely greatly.There should be no universal tax for someone ( oh , gee... maybe Microsoft ?
) to delve into our computer , stumbling across private information , all in the name of " health " .
If I can fix my own car without cost to anyone , if I can fix my own computer without cost to anyone , then I will do it.I think the previous posters have it right : Tie an optional service to the ISP and call it a day .
Have such a service provide regular scans and alerts .
In severe cases , quarantine the computer .
But it should ALL be optional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We may *refer* to it as computer "care" and computer "health", but that doesn't mean it's anywhere near the importance of human healthcare.
I think it's more in line with vehicle care than human health care and in that same vein, should we then have universal car repair?
Computers are devices upon which we rely greatly.There should be no universal tax for someone (oh, gee... maybe Microsoft?
) to delve into our computer, stumbling across private information, all in the name of "health".
If I can fix my own car without cost to anyone, if I can fix my own computer without cost to anyone, then I will do it.I think the previous posters have it right: Tie an optional service to the ISP and call it a day.
Have such a service provide regular scans and alerts.
In severe cases, quarantine the computer.
But it should ALL be optional.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340250</id>
	<title>Re:Is this the same Government that created it?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267549140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ISPs are businesses and businesses pay taxes on income. I don't advise privatizing though. The only thing worse than an ineffective government program is a privatized program where the actual (but unstated) objective is to provide as little as they can get away with for the money (as might be expected based on the natural incentives).</p><p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs are businesses and businesses pay taxes on income .
I do n't advise privatizing though .
The only thing worse than an ineffective government program is a privatized program where the actual ( but unstated ) objective is to provide as little as they can get away with for the money ( as might be expected based on the natural incentives ) . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs are businesses and businesses pay taxes on income.
I don't advise privatizing though.
The only thing worse than an ineffective government program is a privatized program where the actual (but unstated) objective is to provide as little as they can get away with for the money (as might be expected based on the natural incentives)..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338428</id>
	<title>Sounds just like US healthcare</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1267535820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You pay taxes, get no healthcare, and a private company makes obscene profits. Perfect 21st century US system: socialize the downside, capitalize the upside.</p><p>How about Microsoft bring their products up to Unix standard first? How about they do whatever it takes to upgrade the 75\% of their userbase that is 10 years behind?<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You pay taxes , get no healthcare , and a private company makes obscene profits .
Perfect 21st century US system : socialize the downside , capitalize the upside.How about Microsoft bring their products up to Unix standard first ?
How about they do whatever it takes to upgrade the 75 \ % of their userbase that is 10 years behind ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pay taxes, get no healthcare, and a private company makes obscene profits.
Perfect 21st century US system: socialize the downside, capitalize the upside.How about Microsoft bring their products up to Unix standard first?
How about they do whatever it takes to upgrade the 75\% of their userbase that is 10 years behind?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31366208</id>
	<title>Two words:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267716060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUCK OFF!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCK OFF !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCK OFF!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338484</id>
	<title>Re:why not a fine instead</title>
	<author>wc\_paladin</author>
	<datestamp>1267536120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, the problem here is that people don't feel they should pay for anything to do with a computer other than the price-tag they see when they go to BestBuy.  They'll scream blue-murder if they're told that they actually have a responsibility, both financially and in how they operate their machine.  Most people want to treat a computer the way they do their microwave oven, buy it, and if it breaks, replace it, but never, ever have to spend any time or money on maintenance.</p></div><p>To be honest, most people expect their cars to work in the same way.  I can't count the number of times I've seen perfectly good engines ruined when the timing belt snapped because the owner hadn't had it changed at the proper time.  Most people think oil changes are all a car should ever need.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the problem here is that people do n't feel they should pay for anything to do with a computer other than the price-tag they see when they go to BestBuy .
They 'll scream blue-murder if they 're told that they actually have a responsibility , both financially and in how they operate their machine .
Most people want to treat a computer the way they do their microwave oven , buy it , and if it breaks , replace it , but never , ever have to spend any time or money on maintenance.To be honest , most people expect their cars to work in the same way .
I ca n't count the number of times I 've seen perfectly good engines ruined when the timing belt snapped because the owner had n't had it changed at the proper time .
Most people think oil changes are all a car should ever need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, the problem here is that people don't feel they should pay for anything to do with a computer other than the price-tag they see when they go to BestBuy.
They'll scream blue-murder if they're told that they actually have a responsibility, both financially and in how they operate their machine.
Most people want to treat a computer the way they do their microwave oven, buy it, and if it breaks, replace it, but never, ever have to spend any time or money on maintenance.To be honest, most people expect their cars to work in the same way.
I can't count the number of times I've seen perfectly good engines ruined when the timing belt snapped because the owner hadn't had it changed at the proper time.
Most people think oil changes are all a car should ever need.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341008</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1267556340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are you surprised? Those of us that work hard and succeed are taxed more to pay for the lazy,</p></div><p>Well, if you don't like that, then I guess the lesson is that you should slack off and fail. After all, those failing slackers have it so easy, don't they? You can join them, it's easy!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you surprised ?
Those of us that work hard and succeed are taxed more to pay for the lazy,Well , if you do n't like that , then I guess the lesson is that you should slack off and fail .
After all , those failing slackers have it so easy , do n't they ?
You can join them , it 's easy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you surprised?
Those of us that work hard and succeed are taxed more to pay for the lazy,Well, if you don't like that, then I guess the lesson is that you should slack off and fail.
After all, those failing slackers have it so easy, don't they?
You can join them, it's easy!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31346346</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>TooLazyToLogon</author>
	<datestamp>1267635300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. Anti-Virus Programs are not needed and slows down computers.<br>I had a Win2K SP4 machine, that I used as an answering manchine, online 24 hours a day for five years. I used the precautions listed in Lendrick's post, with the addition of putting a router with a firewall between the computer and the cable modem. Although I don't use it for an answering machine now, I still use it regularly. It still is a clean machine.</p><p>Of course most of my online computing is done on linux machines, where I don't have to be near as careful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Anti-Virus Programs are not needed and slows down computers.I had a Win2K SP4 machine , that I used as an answering manchine , online 24 hours a day for five years .
I used the precautions listed in Lendrick 's post , with the addition of putting a router with a firewall between the computer and the cable modem .
Although I do n't use it for an answering machine now , I still use it regularly .
It still is a clean machine.Of course most of my online computing is done on linux machines , where I do n't have to be near as careful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Anti-Virus Programs are not needed and slows down computers.I had a Win2K SP4 machine, that I used as an answering manchine, online 24 hours a day for five years.
I used the precautions listed in Lendrick's post, with the addition of putting a router with a firewall between the computer and the cable modem.
Although I don't use it for an answering machine now, I still use it regularly.
It still is a clean machine.Of course most of my online computing is done on linux machines, where I don't have to be near as careful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338480</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267536060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is straight to the point. Having a 'Windows tax' on every computer sold isn't enough for Microsoft to fix their crummy operating system. They want a REAL tax instituted by government.</p><p>And who gets the money to investigate these viruses / malware? Hmmm, would it be the company that makes the software which hosts the viruses and malware?</p><p>This 'Trustworthy' leader from Microsoft is trying to get the government to fund Microsoft because their operating systems are so crummy. Do you see Toyota getting government funding for their on-board drive by wire software? Let the market decide. When people *finally* (been looking forward to this for 20 years) get sick of using crummy Windows, we can all live on a safe and happy internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is straight to the point .
Having a 'Windows tax ' on every computer sold is n't enough for Microsoft to fix their crummy operating system .
They want a REAL tax instituted by government.And who gets the money to investigate these viruses / malware ?
Hmmm , would it be the company that makes the software which hosts the viruses and malware ? This 'Trustworthy ' leader from Microsoft is trying to get the government to fund Microsoft because their operating systems are so crummy .
Do you see Toyota getting government funding for their on-board drive by wire software ?
Let the market decide .
When people * finally * ( been looking forward to this for 20 years ) get sick of using crummy Windows , we can all live on a safe and happy internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is straight to the point.
Having a 'Windows tax' on every computer sold isn't enough for Microsoft to fix their crummy operating system.
They want a REAL tax instituted by government.And who gets the money to investigate these viruses / malware?
Hmmm, would it be the company that makes the software which hosts the viruses and malware?This 'Trustworthy' leader from Microsoft is trying to get the government to fund Microsoft because their operating systems are so crummy.
Do you see Toyota getting government funding for their on-board drive by wire software?
Let the market decide.
When people *finally* (been looking forward to this for 20 years) get sick of using crummy Windows, we can all live on a safe and happy internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336674</id>
	<title>Like all new government programs</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1267528560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Start a new program<br>2. Institute a new tax<br>3. Collect the tax, but don't put it in a lockbox.<br>4. Taxes are thrown into the general fund, where they're used to buy favors from senators and congressmen.<br>5. Program has no funding, is cut back and made useless except for an overpaid bureaucracy that does nothing.<br>6. When fiscal conservatives propose scrapping the program, they are instead blamed for the shortfall and taxes are raised to "fix" it.<br>7. Repeat from step 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Start a new program2 .
Institute a new tax3 .
Collect the tax , but do n't put it in a lockbox.4 .
Taxes are thrown into the general fund , where they 're used to buy favors from senators and congressmen.5 .
Program has no funding , is cut back and made useless except for an overpaid bureaucracy that does nothing.6 .
When fiscal conservatives propose scrapping the program , they are instead blamed for the shortfall and taxes are raised to " fix " it.7 .
Repeat from step 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Start a new program2.
Institute a new tax3.
Collect the tax, but don't put it in a lockbox.4.
Taxes are thrown into the general fund, where they're used to buy favors from senators and congressmen.5.
Program has no funding, is cut back and made useless except for an overpaid bureaucracy that does nothing.6.
When fiscal conservatives propose scrapping the program, they are instead blamed for the shortfall and taxes are raised to "fix" it.7.
Repeat from step 3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338720</id>
	<title>I'd Be For It</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1267537080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If by "clean" they mean "Remove a Microsoft operating system and replace it with an actually secure operating system."</htmltext>
<tokenext>If by " clean " they mean " Remove a Microsoft operating system and replace it with an actually secure operating system .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by "clean" they mean "Remove a Microsoft operating system and replace it with an actually secure operating system.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336766</id>
	<title>Why blame Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't we focus on the bad guys.  None of the Microsoft, or Adobe, or any other, software imperfections are a criminal problem until some ass tries to steal something using it.  It's like blaming a car maker for a hit &amp; run accident.  Blame the criminals!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we focus on the bad guys .
None of the Microsoft , or Adobe , or any other , software imperfections are a criminal problem until some ass tries to steal something using it .
It 's like blaming a car maker for a hit &amp; run accident .
Blame the criminals !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we focus on the bad guys.
None of the Microsoft, or Adobe, or any other, software imperfections are a criminal problem until some ass tries to steal something using it.
It's like blaming a car maker for a hit &amp; run accident.
Blame the criminals!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337040</id>
	<title>who better to suggest a tax on computers</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1267529880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I'd bet that they are also offering to collect that tax and manage it and the "cleaning" process.<br><br>You know, Linux CDs are free. And, if our schools would get off their butts and realize their students would have an advantage if they were using and learning from open source software then there would also be a huge supply of cheap and eager youngsters ready to clean off the infected Windows botnets and install a version of GNU/Linux.  No tax required. Oh wait, our gov and businesses are financially and secretly tied to Microsoft Windows so this kind of thing would also be a threat to them.  Is this democracy at work or what.<br><br>And all you AC Microserfs can suck dry toast with your dumbass posts. flame on.<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'd bet that they are also offering to collect that tax and manage it and the " cleaning " process.You know , Linux CDs are free .
And , if our schools would get off their butts and realize their students would have an advantage if they were using and learning from open source software then there would also be a huge supply of cheap and eager youngsters ready to clean off the infected Windows botnets and install a version of GNU/Linux .
No tax required .
Oh wait , our gov and businesses are financially and secretly tied to Microsoft Windows so this kind of thing would also be a threat to them .
Is this democracy at work or what.And all you AC Microserfs can suck dry toast with your dumbass posts .
flame on.LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'd bet that they are also offering to collect that tax and manage it and the "cleaning" process.You know, Linux CDs are free.
And, if our schools would get off their butts and realize their students would have an advantage if they were using and learning from open source software then there would also be a huge supply of cheap and eager youngsters ready to clean off the infected Windows botnets and install a version of GNU/Linux.
No tax required.
Oh wait, our gov and businesses are financially and secretly tied to Microsoft Windows so this kind of thing would also be a threat to them.
Is this democracy at work or what.And all you AC Microserfs can suck dry toast with your dumbass posts.
flame on.LoB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536</id>
	<title>Taxes are already paid.</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1267528020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.</p><p>The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.The government ca n't handle the internet due to incompetence , not lack of money,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340070</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Microsoft operating systems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267547700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I reckon it should be run in the Chinese medical tradition. You don't pay your doctor if you're ill, you only pay when you're feeling healthy.</p><p>This would at least give Microsoft a reason to keep people's PC's healthy.</p><p>Microsoft is going after the golden 'fear-of-god tax' that Symantec and other AV companies have utilised for so long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I reckon it should be run in the Chinese medical tradition .
You do n't pay your doctor if you 're ill , you only pay when you 're feeling healthy.This would at least give Microsoft a reason to keep people 's PC 's healthy.Microsoft is going after the golden 'fear-of-god tax ' that Symantec and other AV companies have utilised for so long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I reckon it should be run in the Chinese medical tradition.
You don't pay your doctor if you're ill, you only pay when you're feeling healthy.This would at least give Microsoft a reason to keep people's PC's healthy.Microsoft is going after the golden 'fear-of-god tax' that Symantec and other AV companies have utilised for so long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267528860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't be bothered?</p><p>Have you *used* anti-virus software lately?  It takes over your computer and bogs everything down by scanning at irritating times, like every file access.</p><p>I don't use anti-virus software, except for the occasional one-off malware scan.  I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.</p><p>* I don't trust free downloads unless they're open source, or a google on "$SOFTWARE spyware" comes up clean.<br>* I don't browse porn (or anything else) on internet explorer.<br>* I don't browse porn with adblock turned off.<br>* I don't download stupid free desktop frills, like smileys and crap.<br>* I don't open obvious spam, even if it appears to be from my friends.<br>* When a webpage informs me that it has SCANNED MY COMPUTER and VIRUS DETECTED, I remember that I did not, in fact, install a virus scanner, and that the message is fake, and I do not have to install their special software to fix it.  Instead, I close the web page.<br>* When doing p2p file-sharing, I use clients that are well known and spyware free.<br>* I don't put audio CDs into my machine when I'm running Windows, because they might install rootkits.<br>* I always click the "advanced" button when I install software, because that's where they hide the fact that they're installing a bunch of extra shit I don't want.<br>* Under no circumstances do I *ever* install Norton, which in my experience is far worse for performance than any virus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't be bothered ? Have you * used * anti-virus software lately ?
It takes over your computer and bogs everything down by scanning at irritating times , like every file access.I do n't use anti-virus software , except for the occasional one-off malware scan .
I do n't get viruses because I do n't do stupid shit .
* I do n't trust free downloads unless they 're open source , or a google on " $ SOFTWARE spyware " comes up clean .
* I do n't browse porn ( or anything else ) on internet explorer .
* I do n't browse porn with adblock turned off .
* I do n't download stupid free desktop frills , like smileys and crap .
* I do n't open obvious spam , even if it appears to be from my friends .
* When a webpage informs me that it has SCANNED MY COMPUTER and VIRUS DETECTED , I remember that I did not , in fact , install a virus scanner , and that the message is fake , and I do not have to install their special software to fix it .
Instead , I close the web page .
* When doing p2p file-sharing , I use clients that are well known and spyware free .
* I do n't put audio CDs into my machine when I 'm running Windows , because they might install rootkits .
* I always click the " advanced " button when I install software , because that 's where they hide the fact that they 're installing a bunch of extra shit I do n't want .
* Under no circumstances do I * ever * install Norton , which in my experience is far worse for performance than any virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't be bothered?Have you *used* anti-virus software lately?
It takes over your computer and bogs everything down by scanning at irritating times, like every file access.I don't use anti-virus software, except for the occasional one-off malware scan.
I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.
* I don't trust free downloads unless they're open source, or a google on "$SOFTWARE spyware" comes up clean.
* I don't browse porn (or anything else) on internet explorer.
* I don't browse porn with adblock turned off.
* I don't download stupid free desktop frills, like smileys and crap.
* I don't open obvious spam, even if it appears to be from my friends.
* When a webpage informs me that it has SCANNED MY COMPUTER and VIRUS DETECTED, I remember that I did not, in fact, install a virus scanner, and that the message is fake, and I do not have to install their special software to fix it.
Instead, I close the web page.
* When doing p2p file-sharing, I use clients that are well known and spyware free.
* I don't put audio CDs into my machine when I'm running Windows, because they might install rootkits.
* I always click the "advanced" button when I install software, because that's where they hide the fact that they're installing a bunch of extra shit I don't want.
* Under no circumstances do I *ever* install Norton, which in my experience is far worse for performance than any virus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338332</id>
	<title>Who's the opposite of the Maytag Repair Man?</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1267535340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Vice President for Trustworthy Computing at Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Vice President for Trustworthy Computing at Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Vice President for Trustworthy Computing at Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337616</id>
	<title>Who is paying for the Toyota recall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267532160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taxpayers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxpayers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxpayers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336946</id>
	<title>We're taxed to pay for positive externalities.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267529580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You shouldn't look at this as paying for someone else's mistakes, but as a way to cover the cost of the benefit to us. We all would benefit from reduced spam, scams and malware, we all should pay. Given that spam makes up over 80\% of Internet traffic, we could all download far more porn, far more quickly were spam to disappear.</p><p>This couldn't possibly lead to people caring any less than they already do. Sure, I would love to tax only the people who actually get a virus, but getting rid of the malware is more important than making idiots pay for something they don't understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should n't look at this as paying for someone else 's mistakes , but as a way to cover the cost of the benefit to us .
We all would benefit from reduced spam , scams and malware , we all should pay .
Given that spam makes up over 80 \ % of Internet traffic , we could all download far more porn , far more quickly were spam to disappear.This could n't possibly lead to people caring any less than they already do .
Sure , I would love to tax only the people who actually get a virus , but getting rid of the malware is more important than making idiots pay for something they do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shouldn't look at this as paying for someone else's mistakes, but as a way to cover the cost of the benefit to us.
We all would benefit from reduced spam, scams and malware, we all should pay.
Given that spam makes up over 80\% of Internet traffic, we could all download far more porn, far more quickly were spam to disappear.This couldn't possibly lead to people caring any less than they already do.
Sure, I would love to tax only the people who actually get a virus, but getting rid of the malware is more important than making idiots pay for something they don't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339418</id>
	<title>Not A Tax</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267541940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      That is a fine. It does not meet the definition of a tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a fine .
It does not meet the definition of a tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      That is a fine.
It does not meet the definition of a tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337540</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>L3370</author>
	<datestamp>1267531800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree with you sentiment, I can see a valid argument to counter yours.<br> <br>
Our taxes pay for fire departments. Your home may never go up in flames but someone else's will.  Should we all get a tax refund if our houses don't blow up in x amount of years? It would be nice but I haven't heard outcries for tax refunds on unused fire protection services yet.<br> <br>
I like the idea of personal responsibility, but I also would welcome a goverment approach if it's feasible for the gov't to do it correctly or better than a private industry. With the internet being basically borderless, I don't think gov't has the resources to solve this problem at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with you sentiment , I can see a valid argument to counter yours .
Our taxes pay for fire departments .
Your home may never go up in flames but someone else 's will .
Should we all get a tax refund if our houses do n't blow up in x amount of years ?
It would be nice but I have n't heard outcries for tax refunds on unused fire protection services yet .
I like the idea of personal responsibility , but I also would welcome a goverment approach if it 's feasible for the gov't to do it correctly or better than a private industry .
With the internet being basically borderless , I do n't think gov't has the resources to solve this problem at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with you sentiment, I can see a valid argument to counter yours.
Our taxes pay for fire departments.
Your home may never go up in flames but someone else's will.
Should we all get a tax refund if our houses don't blow up in x amount of years?
It would be nice but I haven't heard outcries for tax refunds on unused fire protection services yet.
I like the idea of personal responsibility, but I also would welcome a goverment approach if it's feasible for the gov't to do it correctly or better than a private industry.
With the internet being basically borderless, I don't think gov't has the resources to solve this problem at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340646</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1267553040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If 99\% of Ford (or Toyota, or...) cars on the road would start to malfunction after 1,000 miles and destroy the roadways in the process,they'd be sued into oblivion (if the government didn't shut them down, first).</p><p>And yet Microsoft has the gall to suggest the government tax us. I can understand a "use tax"; I can understand a liability tax/fee; I can even understand an unevenly distributed tax upon the highest users, or some such thing. But a tax based on negligence, when the actual fault likely sits with a 3rd party? That's absurd.</p><p>(Now, if they were GM cars, it'd be another story...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If 99 \ % of Ford ( or Toyota , or... ) cars on the road would start to malfunction after 1,000 miles and destroy the roadways in the process,they 'd be sued into oblivion ( if the government did n't shut them down , first ) .And yet Microsoft has the gall to suggest the government tax us .
I can understand a " use tax " ; I can understand a liability tax/fee ; I can even understand an unevenly distributed tax upon the highest users , or some such thing .
But a tax based on negligence , when the actual fault likely sits with a 3rd party ?
That 's absurd .
( Now , if they were GM cars , it 'd be another story... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 99\% of Ford (or Toyota, or...) cars on the road would start to malfunction after 1,000 miles and destroy the roadways in the process,they'd be sued into oblivion (if the government didn't shut them down, first).And yet Microsoft has the gall to suggest the government tax us.
I can understand a "use tax"; I can understand a liability tax/fee; I can even understand an unevenly distributed tax upon the highest users, or some such thing.
But a tax based on negligence, when the actual fault likely sits with a 3rd party?
That's absurd.
(Now, if they were GM cars, it'd be another story...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337840</id>
	<title>Fuck That!</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1267533240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not tax Microsoft for writing such a poor, security-hole ridden operating system such as Windows?  The vast majority of botnets and their like are Microsoft.  Got Microsoft, get pwned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not tax Microsoft for writing such a poor , security-hole ridden operating system such as Windows ?
The vast majority of botnets and their like are Microsoft .
Got Microsoft , get pwned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not tax Microsoft for writing such a poor, security-hole ridden operating system such as Windows?
The vast majority of botnets and their like are Microsoft.
Got Microsoft, get pwned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850</id>
	<title>Is this the same Government that created it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.</p><p>The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,</p></div><p>That's pretty funny. What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions? What cut of the ISP bill does the government get? And are we talking about the same government that created the Internet, or is this monstrously incompetent government a different government?</p><p>Maybe if the government is so incompetent, we should outsource such vital functions as roads and the armed services. Obviously, the private sector should be handling those services too, right? You like toll roads, right? Blackwater can easily do the job of the military, why are we letting the incompetent government protect us?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.The government ca n't handle the internet due to incompetence , not lack of money,That 's pretty funny .
What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions ?
What cut of the ISP bill does the government get ?
And are we talking about the same government that created the Internet , or is this monstrously incompetent government a different government ? Maybe if the government is so incompetent , we should outsource such vital functions as roads and the armed services .
Obviously , the private sector should be handling those services too , right ?
You like toll roads , right ?
Blackwater can easily do the job of the military , why are we letting the incompetent government protect us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,That's pretty funny.
What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions?
What cut of the ISP bill does the government get?
And are we talking about the same government that created the Internet, or is this monstrously incompetent government a different government?Maybe if the government is so incompetent, we should outsource such vital functions as roads and the armed services.
Obviously, the private sector should be handling those services too, right?
You like toll roads, right?
Blackwater can easily do the job of the military, why are we letting the incompetent government protect us?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340690</id>
	<title>Typical Microsoft</title>
	<author>wolffenrir</author>
	<datestamp>1267553400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These botnets exist because of the bullshit product this VP is pumping into the market. Instead of fixing that, he wants to EXTERNALIZE the costs of his company's own defects!?

It would be like Toyota suggesting we pay a tax to deal with all the damage from unintended acceleration and faulty break systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These botnets exist because of the bullshit product this VP is pumping into the market .
Instead of fixing that , he wants to EXTERNALIZE the costs of his company 's own defects ! ?
It would be like Toyota suggesting we pay a tax to deal with all the damage from unintended acceleration and faulty break systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These botnets exist because of the bullshit product this VP is pumping into the market.
Instead of fixing that, he wants to EXTERNALIZE the costs of his company's own defects!?
It would be like Toyota suggesting we pay a tax to deal with all the damage from unintended acceleration and faulty break systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336956</id>
	<title>Re:Why blame Microsoft?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1267529640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if your car doesn't have a working lock, you don't blame the car manufacturer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if your car does n't have a working lock , you do n't blame the car manufacturer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if your car doesn't have a working lock, you don't blame the car manufacturer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340574</id>
	<title>Re:inspection and quarantine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267552140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You nailed it! This is not about the tax, that's a smoke screen. It is the inspection and nobody talks about it until it is too late. The inspection will be done by a mandatory government back door in your computer - no internet connection without it. An while they are inspecting everything on your computer is "in plain sight": That includes besides your illegal movies and music also your recent purchases over the internet. Did you pay the sales tax?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You nailed it !
This is not about the tax , that 's a smoke screen .
It is the inspection and nobody talks about it until it is too late .
The inspection will be done by a mandatory government back door in your computer - no internet connection without it .
An while they are inspecting everything on your computer is " in plain sight " : That includes besides your illegal movies and music also your recent purchases over the internet .
Did you pay the sales tax ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You nailed it!
This is not about the tax, that's a smoke screen.
It is the inspection and nobody talks about it until it is too late.
The inspection will be done by a mandatory government back door in your computer - no internet connection without it.
An while they are inspecting everything on your computer is "in plain sight": That includes besides your illegal movies and music also your recent purchases over the internet.
Did you pay the sales tax?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337888</id>
	<title>Let MS add it to the cost of Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267533420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let MS add it to the cost of Windows - Home. That way, the people that will be hacked will be paying, not the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let MS add it to the cost of Windows - Home .
That way , the people that will be hacked will be paying , not the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let MS add it to the cost of Windows - Home.
That way, the people that will be hacked will be paying, not the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540</id>
	<title>Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267528080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do Mac or Linux users get a tax credit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do Mac or Linux users get a tax credit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do Mac or Linux users get a tax credit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336632</id>
	<title>Why should the we pay?</title>
	<author>crustymonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267528380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't use Microsoft products.  Why in the hell should I pay for the standard idiot who can't help but click on the "super-awesome-porn.exe" attachment in Outlook?  This isn't like the medical industry at all.  You can't prevent a lot of the things that happen to you healthwise, whereas a computer "infection" is 100\% preventable.  This is just another case of punishing the intelligent.  This is also a classic example of a shitty corporation (Microsoft) trying to redirect their monetary responsibility of making quality software onto the general public.  Complete bullshit is what this is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use Microsoft products .
Why in the hell should I pay for the standard idiot who ca n't help but click on the " super-awesome-porn.exe " attachment in Outlook ?
This is n't like the medical industry at all .
You ca n't prevent a lot of the things that happen to you healthwise , whereas a computer " infection " is 100 \ % preventable .
This is just another case of punishing the intelligent .
This is also a classic example of a shitty corporation ( Microsoft ) trying to redirect their monetary responsibility of making quality software onto the general public .
Complete bullshit is what this is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use Microsoft products.
Why in the hell should I pay for the standard idiot who can't help but click on the "super-awesome-porn.exe" attachment in Outlook?
This isn't like the medical industry at all.
You can't prevent a lot of the things that happen to you healthwise, whereas a computer "infection" is 100\% preventable.
This is just another case of punishing the intelligent.
This is also a classic example of a shitty corporation (Microsoft) trying to redirect their monetary responsibility of making quality software onto the general public.
Complete bullshit is what this is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</id>
	<title>I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Thinboy00</author>
	<datestamp>1267528140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be <i>required</i> to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be required to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be required to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340730</id>
	<title>How about a Windows tax?</title>
	<author>OrwellianLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1267553820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use my Linux box for nearly everything. The only use I have for Windows (on a separate, offline desktop) is for testing.

Yeah, I should have to pay an extra tax to cover ignorant users...

Seems fair.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use my Linux box for nearly everything .
The only use I have for Windows ( on a separate , offline desktop ) is for testing .
Yeah , I should have to pay an extra tax to cover ignorant users.. . Seems fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use my Linux box for nearly everything.
The only use I have for Windows (on a separate, offline desktop) is for testing.
Yeah, I should have to pay an extra tax to cover ignorant users...

Seems fair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338102</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>pookemon</author>
	<datestamp>1267534260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>See I read your rant, and the one above it as "I used Norton's once so all virus scanners are bad".<br> <br>
I've been using Avast for the last few years.  Free for home use and a damn good product.<br> <br>

A) Sure it updates almost every day - but it has almost no impact on my network (and I'm from Oz where "Broadband" means a bit faster than dial up).<br>
B) Its impact when scanning is not noticable.  It scans the file you modify or try to open.<br>
C) WTF?  What defaults?  The "I can download and run viruses by default" defaults?<br>
D) Avast 99\% of the time is a pair of icons in your system tray.  If the look and feel of your virus scanner is one of you concerns then your worried about the wrong thing...<br>
E) Avast doesn't constantly use CPU time.  A decent virus scanner of any kind would us OS Hooks to identify when it needs to look at files/processes.  It won't need to be doing anything unless you are and then it only needs a quick look at the file/process to see if it recognises it.<br>
F) Avasts free license expires every 12 months.  It takes around a minute to renew.  Big deal.<br>
G) *sigh*  Seriously.  There are millions of gamers around the world that have virus scanners installed.  There's also quite a number of game developers with virus scanners installed.  When was the last time that you read that your virus scanner should be disabled before playing game ?  Sure the downloads of updates can cause a few moments of lag - but big deal.<br>
H) I'm sorry but WTF?  Sure Sony's rootkit can be considered a threat.  But REAL threats are actually more things like Confiker, Trojans etc.  Viruses etc. that (a) might destroy your PC, (b) be used as part of a botnet, (c) steal your personal data etc.<br> <br>

You're worried about how you virus scanner looks, and a slight interruption to your gaming, but not about the impact of having a virus.  The fact that that virus may wipe your machine, cause your machine to be responsible for attacking other machines, or cause masses of SPAM e-mail to be sent out doesn't concern you?  I take it then that your ISP doesn't care that you might be responsible for infecting other machines, sending SPAM etc.<br> <br>Take your tinfoil hat off and go out and get some sunshine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>See I read your rant , and the one above it as " I used Norton 's once so all virus scanners are bad " .
I 've been using Avast for the last few years .
Free for home use and a damn good product .
A ) Sure it updates almost every day - but it has almost no impact on my network ( and I 'm from Oz where " Broadband " means a bit faster than dial up ) .
B ) Its impact when scanning is not noticable .
It scans the file you modify or try to open .
C ) WTF ?
What defaults ?
The " I can download and run viruses by default " defaults ?
D ) Avast 99 \ % of the time is a pair of icons in your system tray .
If the look and feel of your virus scanner is one of you concerns then your worried about the wrong thing.. . E ) Avast does n't constantly use CPU time .
A decent virus scanner of any kind would us OS Hooks to identify when it needs to look at files/processes .
It wo n't need to be doing anything unless you are and then it only needs a quick look at the file/process to see if it recognises it .
F ) Avasts free license expires every 12 months .
It takes around a minute to renew .
Big deal .
G ) * sigh * Seriously .
There are millions of gamers around the world that have virus scanners installed .
There 's also quite a number of game developers with virus scanners installed .
When was the last time that you read that your virus scanner should be disabled before playing game ?
Sure the downloads of updates can cause a few moments of lag - but big deal .
H ) I 'm sorry but WTF ?
Sure Sony 's rootkit can be considered a threat .
But REAL threats are actually more things like Confiker , Trojans etc .
Viruses etc .
that ( a ) might destroy your PC , ( b ) be used as part of a botnet , ( c ) steal your personal data etc .
You 're worried about how you virus scanner looks , and a slight interruption to your gaming , but not about the impact of having a virus .
The fact that that virus may wipe your machine , cause your machine to be responsible for attacking other machines , or cause masses of SPAM e-mail to be sent out does n't concern you ?
I take it then that your ISP does n't care that you might be responsible for infecting other machines , sending SPAM etc .
Take your tinfoil hat off and go out and get some sunshine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See I read your rant, and the one above it as "I used Norton's once so all virus scanners are bad".
I've been using Avast for the last few years.
Free for home use and a damn good product.
A) Sure it updates almost every day - but it has almost no impact on my network (and I'm from Oz where "Broadband" means a bit faster than dial up).
B) Its impact when scanning is not noticable.
It scans the file you modify or try to open.
C) WTF?
What defaults?
The "I can download and run viruses by default" defaults?
D) Avast 99\% of the time is a pair of icons in your system tray.
If the look and feel of your virus scanner is one of you concerns then your worried about the wrong thing...
E) Avast doesn't constantly use CPU time.
A decent virus scanner of any kind would us OS Hooks to identify when it needs to look at files/processes.
It won't need to be doing anything unless you are and then it only needs a quick look at the file/process to see if it recognises it.
F) Avasts free license expires every 12 months.
It takes around a minute to renew.
Big deal.
G) *sigh*  Seriously.
There are millions of gamers around the world that have virus scanners installed.
There's also quite a number of game developers with virus scanners installed.
When was the last time that you read that your virus scanner should be disabled before playing game ?
Sure the downloads of updates can cause a few moments of lag - but big deal.
H) I'm sorry but WTF?
Sure Sony's rootkit can be considered a threat.
But REAL threats are actually more things like Confiker, Trojans etc.
Viruses etc.
that (a) might destroy your PC, (b) be used as part of a botnet, (c) steal your personal data etc.
You're worried about how you virus scanner looks, and a slight interruption to your gaming, but not about the impact of having a virus.
The fact that that virus may wipe your machine, cause your machine to be responsible for attacking other machines, or cause masses of SPAM e-mail to be sent out doesn't concern you?
I take it then that your ISP doesn't care that you might be responsible for infecting other machines, sending SPAM etc.
Take your tinfoil hat off and go out and get some sunshine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336726</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267528800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering how Linux has its own huge share of vulnerabilities, how about no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how Linux has its own huge share of vulnerabilities , how about no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how Linux has its own huge share of vulnerabilities, how about no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336722</id>
	<title>Silly Microsoft</title>
	<author>Jonesy69</author>
	<datestamp>1267528800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, are they TRYING to piss off their shareholders?

I've never heard of anybody who wants to essentially tax themselves...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , are they TRYING to piss off their shareholders ?
I 've never heard of anybody who wants to essentially tax themselves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, are they TRYING to piss off their shareholders?
I've never heard of anybody who wants to essentially tax themselves...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338384</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267535580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Have you *used* anti-virus software lately? It takes over your computer and bogs everything down by scanning at irritating times, like every file access."</p><p>I'm brilliant enough to know how to schedule scans, apparently.</p><p>"Under no circumstances do I *ever* install Norton, which in my experience is far worse for performance than any virus."</p><p>Yes, it's a shame that Norton is the only company that makes AV solutions.</p><p>OH WAIT</p><p>You're really no better than the other lazy people mentioned in the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Have you * used * anti-virus software lately ?
It takes over your computer and bogs everything down by scanning at irritating times , like every file access .
" I 'm brilliant enough to know how to schedule scans , apparently .
" Under no circumstances do I * ever * install Norton , which in my experience is far worse for performance than any virus .
" Yes , it 's a shame that Norton is the only company that makes AV solutions.OH WAITYou 're really no better than the other lazy people mentioned in the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Have you *used* anti-virus software lately?
It takes over your computer and bogs everything down by scanning at irritating times, like every file access.
"I'm brilliant enough to know how to schedule scans, apparently.
"Under no circumstances do I *ever* install Norton, which in my experience is far worse for performance than any virus.
"Yes, it's a shame that Norton is the only company that makes AV solutions.OH WAITYou're really no better than the other lazy people mentioned in the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338404</id>
	<title>Sygate for life.</title>
	<author>Drumpig</author>
	<datestamp>1267535640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still running Sygate Firewall... The only protection you will ever need!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still running Sygate Firewall... The only protection you will ever need !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still running Sygate Firewall... The only protection you will ever need!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1267528860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone benefits from an internet largely free of infected machines. Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone benefits from an internet largely free of infected machines .
Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone benefits from an internet largely free of infected machines.
Just as everyone benefits from an educated and healthy society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340604</id>
	<title>Why not tax OS makers?</title>
	<author>garry\_g</author>
	<datestamp>1267552500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, the root of the problem is in the massive holes in the system's design (as well as application software)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Also, let me guess - M$ would graciously offer certain service (for pay) to remove virus/worm/malware infections?</p><p>No thank you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , the root of the problem is in the massive holes in the system 's design ( as well as application software ) ...Also , let me guess - M $ would graciously offer certain service ( for pay ) to remove virus/worm/malware infections ? No thank you .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, the root of the problem is in the massive holes in the system's design (as well as application software) ...Also, let me guess - M$ would graciously offer certain service (for pay) to remove virus/worm/malware infections?No thank you ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336890</id>
	<title>no tax - accountability</title>
	<author>bingbong</author>
	<datestamp>1267529400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would prefer that software vendors be held accountable for their products. Every other industry is.</p><p>Though this is what former Cyber Security Czar Richard Clarke said at Blackhat in Vegas around 2003, and well... look what happened to his career after that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would prefer that software vendors be held accountable for their products .
Every other industry is.Though this is what former Cyber Security Czar Richard Clarke said at Blackhat in Vegas around 2003 , and well... look what happened to his career after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would prefer that software vendors be held accountable for their products.
Every other industry is.Though this is what former Cyber Security Czar Richard Clarke said at Blackhat in Vegas around 2003, and well... look what happened to his career after that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339206</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>p.rican</author>
	<datestamp>1267540320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the saying goes, "You can't fix stupid..." but maybe you can throw money at it.

How would this tax be levied?. I don't run Windows on any PC I own, just my laptop for work.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the saying goes , " You ca n't fix stupid... " but maybe you can throw money at it .
How would this tax be levied ? .
I do n't run Windows on any PC I own , just my laptop for work.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the saying goes, "You can't fix stupid..." but maybe you can throw money at it.
How would this tax be levied?.
I don't run Windows on any PC I own, just my laptop for work.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336606</id>
	<title>It is time to get serious</title>
	<author>NEDHead</author>
	<datestamp>1267528320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spend whatever it takes to find those that are behind the problem.  Then kill them.  Then start on the scammers that target the elderly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spend whatever it takes to find those that are behind the problem .
Then kill them .
Then start on the scammers that target the elderly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spend whatever it takes to find those that are behind the problem.
Then kill them.
Then start on the scammers that target the elderly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339030</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1267539000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and in real life polluters have to pay , so MS should be taxed or even better - ignored .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and in real life polluters have to pay , so MS should be taxed or even better - ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and in real life polluters have to pay , so MS should be taxed or even better - ignored .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337430</id>
	<title>Re:Taxes are already paid.</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1267531260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.</p><p>The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,</p></div><p>Furthermore, there is no reason to add yet another market sector that will profit from malware!</p><p>Many will remember that anti-virus companies demanded that Microsoft allow their packages to run in Vista with elevated privileges, thereby leaving open a security hole that Microsoft had intended to close permanently.  The industry is simply "Too Lucrative to Fail".</p><p>Allowing anyone to obtain money only as long as a problem exists is the surest way to assure it will always exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.The government ca n't handle the internet due to incompetence , not lack of money,Furthermore , there is no reason to add yet another market sector that will profit from malware ! Many will remember that anti-virus companies demanded that Microsoft allow their packages to run in Vista with elevated privileges , thereby leaving open a security hole that Microsoft had intended to close permanently .
The industry is simply " Too Lucrative to Fail " .Allowing anyone to obtain money only as long as a problem exists is the surest way to assure it will always exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,Furthermore, there is no reason to add yet another market sector that will profit from malware!Many will remember that anti-virus companies demanded that Microsoft allow their packages to run in Vista with elevated privileges, thereby leaving open a security hole that Microsoft had intended to close permanently.
The industry is simply "Too Lucrative to Fail".Allowing anyone to obtain money only as long as a problem exists is the surest way to assure it will always exist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337262</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1267530600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to do all that. But then I got tired and switched to OS X where I can use the computer the way it was meant to be used without having to be the anti-virus software myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to do all that .
But then I got tired and switched to OS X where I can use the computer the way it was meant to be used without having to be the anti-virus software myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to do all that.
But then I got tired and switched to OS X where I can use the computer the way it was meant to be used without having to be the anti-virus software myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336602</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Kitkoan</author>
	<datestamp>1267528260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe Linux, but not Mac. Mac has it's own malware, while small it's still there and growing as Mac is growing. Mac even has it's own botnet ( <a href="http://theappleblog.com/2009/04/24/mac-botnet-how-to-ensure-you-are-not-part-of-the-problem/" title="theappleblog.com" rel="nofollow">http://theappleblog.com/2009/04/24/mac-botnet-how-to-ensure-you-are-not-part-of-the-problem/</a> [theappleblog.com] )</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Linux , but not Mac .
Mac has it 's own malware , while small it 's still there and growing as Mac is growing .
Mac even has it 's own botnet ( http : //theappleblog.com/2009/04/24/mac-botnet-how-to-ensure-you-are-not-part-of-the-problem/ [ theappleblog.com ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Linux, but not Mac.
Mac has it's own malware, while small it's still there and growing as Mac is growing.
Mac even has it's own botnet ( http://theappleblog.com/2009/04/24/mac-botnet-how-to-ensure-you-are-not-part-of-the-problem/ [theappleblog.com] )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31344564</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1267627500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and a properly configured and good AV program you won't notice is there at all, like AVG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and a properly configured and good AV program you wo n't notice is there at all , like AVG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and a properly configured and good AV program you won't notice is there at all, like AVG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336582</id>
	<title>Deal.</title>
	<author>Whispers\_in\_the\_dark</author>
	<datestamp>1267528200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft should get taxed every time one of their crappy products lets in yet another piece of malware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft should get taxed every time one of their crappy products lets in yet another piece of malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft should get taxed every time one of their crappy products lets in yet another piece of malware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337454</id>
	<title>Discounted????</title>
	<author>PinkyGigglebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1267531380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"... if the charges were discounted<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</i> <br> <br>Fsck that, no charge or even better, a credit.<br> <br>All my systems are Linux, why should I have to pay even one cent because Micro$oft can't get their F'ing act together and J. Sixpack McPornbrowser is an idiot?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... if the charges were discounted ... " Fsck that , no charge or even better , a credit .
All my systems are Linux , why should I have to pay even one cent because Micro $ oft ca n't get their F'ing act together and J. Sixpack McPornbrowser is an idiot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... if the charges were discounted ..."  Fsck that, no charge or even better, a credit.
All my systems are Linux, why should I have to pay even one cent because Micro$oft can't get their F'ing act together and J. Sixpack McPornbrowser is an idiot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337378</id>
	<title>How about we tax MS instead?</title>
	<author>Dracos</author>
	<datestamp>1267531080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The company who is nearly single handedly the reason why there is an anti-virus industry wants a tax to pay for malware removal?  F#$\% off.</p><p>We should fine MS $1000 for every infection on systems running their software.  IE and Outlook exploits could probably pay off the US national debt in 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company who is nearly single handedly the reason why there is an anti-virus industry wants a tax to pay for malware removal ?
F # $ \ % off.We should fine MS $ 1000 for every infection on systems running their software .
IE and Outlook exploits could probably pay off the US national debt in 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company who is nearly single handedly the reason why there is an anti-virus industry wants a tax to pay for malware removal?
F#$\% off.We should fine MS $1000 for every infection on systems running their software.
IE and Outlook exploits could probably pay off the US national debt in 10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341708</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Markske</author>
	<datestamp>1267648980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just using Linux and I never had any form of malware or viruses<br>I will not pay for M$ to cleanup there own mess</p><p>M$ just sould fix there OS so that clueless ppl don'd need a antivirus<br>(the viruses and malware will just disappear if it fails to work)<br>But then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there is a gap for those antivirus vendors</p><p>ppl are already paying money to cleanup mess of M$<br>(they even pay for an OS that can run malware or viruses)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just using Linux and I never had any form of malware or virusesI will not pay for M $ to cleanup there own messM $ just sould fix there OS so that clueless ppl don 'd need a antivirus ( the viruses and malware will just disappear if it fails to work ) But then ... there is a gap for those antivirus vendorsppl are already paying money to cleanup mess of M $ ( they even pay for an OS that can run malware or viruses )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just using Linux and I never had any form of malware or virusesI will not pay for M$ to cleanup there own messM$ just sould fix there OS so that clueless ppl don'd need a antivirus(the viruses and malware will just disappear if it fails to work)But then ... there is a gap for those antivirus vendorsppl are already paying money to cleanup mess of M$(they even pay for an OS that can run malware or viruses)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336856</id>
	<title>I have a better idea</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1267529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that we are in the business of popping out silly ideas, then why not hold commercial software accountable for their own security bugs in their products and make them liable to civil damages. All engineering fields have that, why not IT?  If we need to solve a problem then we impose incentives to eliminate it.  No one will ever eliminate a security problem by subsidizing an industry which relies on security problems for it's livelihood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that we are in the business of popping out silly ideas , then why not hold commercial software accountable for their own security bugs in their products and make them liable to civil damages .
All engineering fields have that , why not IT ?
If we need to solve a problem then we impose incentives to eliminate it .
No one will ever eliminate a security problem by subsidizing an industry which relies on security problems for it 's livelihood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that we are in the business of popping out silly ideas, then why not hold commercial software accountable for their own security bugs in their products and make them liable to civil damages.
All engineering fields have that, why not IT?
If we need to solve a problem then we impose incentives to eliminate it.
No one will ever eliminate a security problem by subsidizing an industry which relies on security problems for it's livelihood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342058</id>
	<title>Basically they mean ... two taxes?</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1267608360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since we all are already paying the Microsoft OEM tax; available on every system you can buy (tm)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. as if it isn't enough.</p><p>Best marketing stunt available since long<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since we all are already paying the Microsoft OEM tax ; available on every system you can buy ( tm ) .. as if it is n't enough.Best marketing stunt available since long .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since we all are already paying the Microsoft OEM tax; available on every system you can buy (tm) .. as if it isn't enough.Best marketing stunt available since long ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336842</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1267529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry, and consider using 'general taxation' to pay for inspection and quarantine.</p> </div><p>

First off, there are two separate issues, one is that anyone can get sick, and in general, only badly configured -Windows- machines get malware. Yes, you -can- make Mac/Linux malware but other than a few isolated issues they aren't big deals. <br> <br>

Secondly, the computer industry and the internet should not be taxed! I don't mind paying for -some- taxes because I get benefits because of it, defense, roads, etc. But what positive government involvement in the internet has occurred post-1990? Other than trying to regulate it, crushing internet freedoms and privacy the government hasn't done shit. <br> <br>

Taxes should be akin to buying something in the store, you pay money, you get benefits. I pay taxes, I get protection, freedom to bear arms, unrestricted freedom of expression, etc. Just like I pay $200 and get a new Wii console.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry , and consider using 'general taxation ' to pay for inspection and quarantine .
First off , there are two separate issues , one is that anyone can get sick , and in general , only badly configured -Windows- machines get malware .
Yes , you -can- make Mac/Linux malware but other than a few isolated issues they are n't big deals .
Secondly , the computer industry and the internet should not be taxed !
I do n't mind paying for -some- taxes because I get benefits because of it , defense , roads , etc .
But what positive government involvement in the internet has occurred post-1990 ?
Other than trying to regulate it , crushing internet freedoms and privacy the government has n't done shit .
Taxes should be akin to buying something in the store , you pay money , you get benefits .
I pay taxes , I get protection , freedom to bear arms , unrestricted freedom of expression , etc .
Just like I pay $ 200 and get a new Wii console .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Approach the problem of dealing with malware infections like the healthcare industry, and consider using 'general taxation' to pay for inspection and quarantine.
First off, there are two separate issues, one is that anyone can get sick, and in general, only badly configured -Windows- machines get malware.
Yes, you -can- make Mac/Linux malware but other than a few isolated issues they aren't big deals.
Secondly, the computer industry and the internet should not be taxed!
I don't mind paying for -some- taxes because I get benefits because of it, defense, roads, etc.
But what positive government involvement in the internet has occurred post-1990?
Other than trying to regulate it, crushing internet freedoms and privacy the government hasn't done shit.
Taxes should be akin to buying something in the store, you pay money, you get benefits.
I pay taxes, I get protection, freedom to bear arms, unrestricted freedom of expression, etc.
Just like I pay $200 and get a new Wii console.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336910</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>SpeZek</author>
	<datestamp>1267529460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.</p></div><p>QFT<br> <br>
Unfortunately, the media loves to paint "viruses" and "hackers" as magical threats that crawl through your internet piping and clog up your "CPU".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get viruses because I do n't do stupid shit.QFT Unfortunately , the media loves to paint " viruses " and " hackers " as magical threats that crawl through your internet piping and clog up your " CPU " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.QFT 
Unfortunately, the media loves to paint "viruses" and "hackers" as magical threats that crawl through your internet piping and clog up your "CPU".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337388</id>
	<title>Re:Why blame Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1267531080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow that analogy was bad, I mean really bad.  That is worse than even what Badanalogyguy would have posted.</p><p>It's like blaming Ford for the Pinto.</p><p>Or blaming Toyota for their sudden acceleration problems.</p><p>Are you suggesting that we should be blaming telephone poles for accidents?</p><p>Of course we're blaming Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow that analogy was bad , I mean really bad .
That is worse than even what Badanalogyguy would have posted.It 's like blaming Ford for the Pinto.Or blaming Toyota for their sudden acceleration problems.Are you suggesting that we should be blaming telephone poles for accidents ? Of course we 're blaming Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow that analogy was bad, I mean really bad.
That is worse than even what Badanalogyguy would have posted.It's like blaming Ford for the Pinto.Or blaming Toyota for their sudden acceleration problems.Are you suggesting that we should be blaming telephone poles for accidents?Of course we're blaming Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337856</id>
	<title>EGADS!</title>
	<author>jav1231</author>
	<datestamp>1267533300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What an idiot. Of course he works for Microsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What an idiot .
Of course he works for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an idiot.
Of course he works for Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338500</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Carbaholic</author>
	<datestamp>1267536180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely agree with the premise that Software regulation should be handled like the healthcare industry should be handled.</p><p>I don't think I should have to pay for the healthcare bills of people who can't control their eating and health habits any more than I should have to pay for the tech. support bill for people who can't control their spam downloading habits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely agree with the premise that Software regulation should be handled like the healthcare industry should be handled.I do n't think I should have to pay for the healthcare bills of people who ca n't control their eating and health habits any more than I should have to pay for the tech .
support bill for people who ca n't control their spam downloading habits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely agree with the premise that Software regulation should be handled like the healthcare industry should be handled.I don't think I should have to pay for the healthcare bills of people who can't control their eating and health habits any more than I should have to pay for the tech.
support bill for people who can't control their spam downloading habits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339384</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1267541640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't write down a set of rules for the average (ignorant) user; having an awareness of what is dangerous and what's not in the big fun world of computers requires a level of experience most people who use computers more secondarily just don't have the time to accomplish.</p><p>Computers are useful tools, it's a shame there's so many people out there intent on turning those tools against their users. Wrenches can't be programmed to give away a mechanic's secrets, scissors can't be infected with malicious code to destroy a hairdresser's business...</p><p>These people do very important work and their inability to understand the complexities of computers should not be such a threat to their lives.</p><p>You don't do stupid shit because you're aware what stupid shit is with computers, but can you overhaul a V6 and give perms, cuts and other fancy hair stuff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't write down a set of rules for the average ( ignorant ) user ; having an awareness of what is dangerous and what 's not in the big fun world of computers requires a level of experience most people who use computers more secondarily just do n't have the time to accomplish.Computers are useful tools , it 's a shame there 's so many people out there intent on turning those tools against their users .
Wrenches ca n't be programmed to give away a mechanic 's secrets , scissors ca n't be infected with malicious code to destroy a hairdresser 's business...These people do very important work and their inability to understand the complexities of computers should not be such a threat to their lives.You do n't do stupid shit because you 're aware what stupid shit is with computers , but can you overhaul a V6 and give perms , cuts and other fancy hair stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't write down a set of rules for the average (ignorant) user; having an awareness of what is dangerous and what's not in the big fun world of computers requires a level of experience most people who use computers more secondarily just don't have the time to accomplish.Computers are useful tools, it's a shame there's so many people out there intent on turning those tools against their users.
Wrenches can't be programmed to give away a mechanic's secrets, scissors can't be infected with malicious code to destroy a hairdresser's business...These people do very important work and their inability to understand the complexities of computers should not be such a threat to their lives.You don't do stupid shit because you're aware what stupid shit is with computers, but can you overhaul a V6 and give perms, cuts and other fancy hair stuff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341348</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267559580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. It's "supposed to watch" every little file access!<br><tt><br>2. SCRIPT YOUR RESOURCES AND TUNE YOUR SHIT!<br>Private Sub Command1\_Click()<br>Shell ("c:\xyz\kill.exe mt-svr.exe"),<br>Shell ("c:\Program Files\Kaspersky Lab\Kaspersky Internet Security 2009\avp.com"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("c:\Program Files\Kaspersky Lab\avpoff.bat"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("c:\windows\explorer.exe"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("c:\xyz\kill.exe explorer.exe"),<br>Shell ("c:\xyz\svc\WINUPDATE\winupdateON.bat"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("c:\xyz\svc\WINUPDATE\winupdateOFF.bat"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("C:\xyz\shudownnow.bat"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("C:\Program Files\Winamp\winamp.exe")<br>' Fucker's for PRO TOOLS eh!?<br>Shell ("net start DigiRefresh"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("C:\Program Files\proDAD\Heroglyph-2.5\mt-svr.exe")<br>Shell ("net stop DigiRefresh"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("C:\xyz\ProcessHacker.exe"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("c:\xyz\kill.exe vegas80.exe"),<br>Shell ("c:\xyz\DTaskManager.exe"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("C:\Program Files\Sony\Vegas Pro 8.0\vegas80.exe"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("c:\xyz\kill.exe vitascene-svr.exe"),<br>Shell ("net start spooler"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("net stop spooler"), vbNormalFocus<br>Shell ("c:\xyz\ztw.exe"), vbNormalFocus<br>' ONLY PICK ONE!! Ack...hint VB6<br>End Sub<br>End  ' THE BIG QUIT!<br>End Sub</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
It 's " supposed to watch " every little file access ! 2 .
SCRIPT YOUR RESOURCES AND TUNE YOUR SHIT ! Private Sub Command1 \ _Click ( ) Shell ( " c : \ xyz \ kill.exe mt-svr.exe " ) ,Shell ( " c : \ Program Files \ Kaspersky Lab \ Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 \ avp.com " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " c : \ Program Files \ Kaspersky Lab \ avpoff.bat " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " c : \ windows \ explorer.exe " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " c : \ xyz \ kill.exe explorer.exe " ) ,Shell ( " c : \ xyz \ svc \ WINUPDATE \ winupdateON.bat " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " c : \ xyz \ svc \ WINUPDATE \ winupdateOFF.bat " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " C : \ xyz \ shudownnow.bat " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " C : \ Program Files \ Winamp \ winamp.exe " ) ' Fucker 's for PRO TOOLS eh !
? Shell ( " net start DigiRefresh " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " C : \ Program Files \ proDAD \ Heroglyph-2.5 \ mt-svr.exe " ) Shell ( " net stop DigiRefresh " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " C : \ xyz \ ProcessHacker.exe " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " c : \ xyz \ kill.exe vegas80.exe " ) ,Shell ( " c : \ xyz \ DTaskManager.exe " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " C : \ Program Files \ Sony \ Vegas Pro 8.0 \ vegas80.exe " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " c : \ xyz \ kill.exe vitascene-svr.exe " ) ,Shell ( " net start spooler " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " net stop spooler " ) , vbNormalFocusShell ( " c : \ xyz \ ztw.exe " ) , vbNormalFocus ' ONLY PICK ONE ! !
Ack...hint VB6End SubEnd ' THE BIG QUIT ! End Sub</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
It's "supposed to watch" every little file access!2.
SCRIPT YOUR RESOURCES AND TUNE YOUR SHIT!Private Sub Command1\_Click()Shell ("c:\xyz\kill.exe mt-svr.exe"),Shell ("c:\Program Files\Kaspersky Lab\Kaspersky Internet Security 2009\avp.com"), vbNormalFocusShell ("c:\Program Files\Kaspersky Lab\avpoff.bat"), vbNormalFocusShell ("c:\windows\explorer.exe"), vbNormalFocusShell ("c:\xyz\kill.exe explorer.exe"),Shell ("c:\xyz\svc\WINUPDATE\winupdateON.bat"), vbNormalFocusShell ("c:\xyz\svc\WINUPDATE\winupdateOFF.bat"), vbNormalFocusShell ("C:\xyz\shudownnow.bat"), vbNormalFocusShell ("C:\Program Files\Winamp\winamp.exe")' Fucker's for PRO TOOLS eh!
?Shell ("net start DigiRefresh"), vbNormalFocusShell ("C:\Program Files\proDAD\Heroglyph-2.5\mt-svr.exe")Shell ("net stop DigiRefresh"), vbNormalFocusShell ("C:\xyz\ProcessHacker.exe"), vbNormalFocusShell ("c:\xyz\kill.exe vegas80.exe"),Shell ("c:\xyz\DTaskManager.exe"), vbNormalFocusShell ("C:\Program Files\Sony\Vegas Pro 8.0\vegas80.exe"), vbNormalFocusShell ("c:\xyz\kill.exe vitascene-svr.exe"),Shell ("net start spooler"), vbNormalFocusShell ("net stop spooler"), vbNormalFocusShell ("c:\xyz\ztw.exe"), vbNormalFocus' ONLY PICK ONE!!
Ack...hint VB6End SubEnd  ' THE BIG QUIT!End Sub</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337302</id>
	<title>Re:Is this the same Government that created it?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1267530720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's pretty funny. What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions? What cut of the ISP bill does the government get?</p></div><p>Income tax.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty funny .
What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions ?
What cut of the ISP bill does the government get ? Income tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty funny.
What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions?
What cut of the ISP bill does the government get?Income tax.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337474</id>
	<title>Re:In other words,</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1267531500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well to be honest not every vector is 100\% microsofts fault.<br>Adobe flash has been a huge source of vectors.<br>I have seen machines infected running firefox.<br>Of course part of the problem is that Win65-ME used a broken security model from the start and a lot of software was written that run on that broken model.<br>And of course there are the IE6 dependent web apps that didn't follow real standards but instead trusted in Microsoft and used their "standards" and now will not run on ie7 or ie8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well to be honest not every vector is 100 \ % microsofts fault.Adobe flash has been a huge source of vectors.I have seen machines infected running firefox.Of course part of the problem is that Win65-ME used a broken security model from the start and a lot of software was written that run on that broken model.And of course there are the IE6 dependent web apps that did n't follow real standards but instead trusted in Microsoft and used their " standards " and now will not run on ie7 or ie8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well to be honest not every vector is 100\% microsofts fault.Adobe flash has been a huge source of vectors.I have seen machines infected running firefox.Of course part of the problem is that Win65-ME used a broken security model from the start and a lot of software was written that run on that broken model.And of course there are the IE6 dependent web apps that didn't follow real standards but instead trusted in Microsoft and used their "standards" and now will not run on ie7 or ie8.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339142</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1267539720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't use anti-virus software, except for the occasional one-off malware scan. I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.</p></div><p>You seem to mistakenly assume one has to do 'stupid shit' to catch a computer virus.</p><p>Normal safe everyday actions can and do get people infected all the time.<br>Actions such as just installing windows while your PC is directly connected to the internet.  Yes a known bad action now, but not to most people.</p><p>Browsing safe websites can also do it, especially so in Internet Explorer where the browser will happily execute code the web server gives it and not bother even informing you of the fact it just did so.</p><p>Even without IE, one of the bigger news making worms a few years back targeted banking and online store web servers.  On successfully infecting them, it modified the pages being served to visitors/customers that give infected files.</p><p>Tons of exploits require no user interaction, as long as the conditions are right.<br>And these aren't 'perfect lab' conditions, but real world ones that DO come up occasionally (some frequently)</p><p>But, even with all that said, there is the mistaken assumption that an anti-virus program will keep you safe too.<br>Sadly, most can only find things they are aware of.  This leaves a window of opportunity where not a single AV program will catch a virus.  Depending on the product, knowing about a new virus can take hours to months.</p><p>There really is no simple cure, other than expecting and paying for well designed software.<br>As such software will cost a lot more than the current offerings do, and with the staggering amount of ignorance about, I can't see such a product making it in the market too well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p><p>P.S., you are spot on about Norton.  Might as well run no AV, as being infected with 20 viruses still has a better chance of leaving your computer operational and running faster than non-infected and with Norton running...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use anti-virus software , except for the occasional one-off malware scan .
I do n't get viruses because I do n't do stupid shit.You seem to mistakenly assume one has to do 'stupid shit ' to catch a computer virus.Normal safe everyday actions can and do get people infected all the time.Actions such as just installing windows while your PC is directly connected to the internet .
Yes a known bad action now , but not to most people.Browsing safe websites can also do it , especially so in Internet Explorer where the browser will happily execute code the web server gives it and not bother even informing you of the fact it just did so.Even without IE , one of the bigger news making worms a few years back targeted banking and online store web servers .
On successfully infecting them , it modified the pages being served to visitors/customers that give infected files.Tons of exploits require no user interaction , as long as the conditions are right.And these are n't 'perfect lab ' conditions , but real world ones that DO come up occasionally ( some frequently ) But , even with all that said , there is the mistaken assumption that an anti-virus program will keep you safe too.Sadly , most can only find things they are aware of .
This leaves a window of opportunity where not a single AV program will catch a virus .
Depending on the product , knowing about a new virus can take hours to months.There really is no simple cure , other than expecting and paying for well designed software.As such software will cost a lot more than the current offerings do , and with the staggering amount of ignorance about , I ca n't see such a product making it in the market too well : /P.S. , you are spot on about Norton .
Might as well run no AV , as being infected with 20 viruses still has a better chance of leaving your computer operational and running faster than non-infected and with Norton running.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use anti-virus software, except for the occasional one-off malware scan.
I don't get viruses because I don't do stupid shit.You seem to mistakenly assume one has to do 'stupid shit' to catch a computer virus.Normal safe everyday actions can and do get people infected all the time.Actions such as just installing windows while your PC is directly connected to the internet.
Yes a known bad action now, but not to most people.Browsing safe websites can also do it, especially so in Internet Explorer where the browser will happily execute code the web server gives it and not bother even informing you of the fact it just did so.Even without IE, one of the bigger news making worms a few years back targeted banking and online store web servers.
On successfully infecting them, it modified the pages being served to visitors/customers that give infected files.Tons of exploits require no user interaction, as long as the conditions are right.And these aren't 'perfect lab' conditions, but real world ones that DO come up occasionally (some frequently)But, even with all that said, there is the mistaken assumption that an anti-virus program will keep you safe too.Sadly, most can only find things they are aware of.
This leaves a window of opportunity where not a single AV program will catch a virus.
Depending on the product, knowing about a new virus can take hours to months.There really is no simple cure, other than expecting and paying for well designed software.As such software will cost a lot more than the current offerings do, and with the staggering amount of ignorance about, I can't see such a product making it in the market too well :/P.S., you are spot on about Norton.
Might as well run no AV, as being infected with 20 viruses still has a better chance of leaving your computer operational and running faster than non-infected and with Norton running...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337626</id>
	<title>Re:why not a fine instead</title>
	<author>MC2000</author>
	<datestamp>1267532220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's try again with the car analogy.  What about if your car doesn't have an alarm system in it, and it gets broken into?  Should the government be punishing the car owner, the car manufacturer, or the criminal?  If the government really wants to get involved, let's form a SWAT team that tracks down and kills the people making malicious software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's try again with the car analogy .
What about if your car does n't have an alarm system in it , and it gets broken into ?
Should the government be punishing the car owner , the car manufacturer , or the criminal ?
If the government really wants to get involved , let 's form a SWAT team that tracks down and kills the people making malicious software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's try again with the car analogy.
What about if your car doesn't have an alarm system in it, and it gets broken into?
Should the government be punishing the car owner, the car manufacturer, or the criminal?
If the government really wants to get involved, let's form a SWAT team that tracks down and kills the people making malicious software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340870</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>HalfFlat</author>
	<datestamp>1267555320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those of you who do not work hard but succeed regardless also pay, while those who work hard but are subject to some misfortune also receive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those of you who do not work hard but succeed regardless also pay , while those who work hard but are subject to some misfortune also receive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those of you who do not work hard but succeed regardless also pay, while those who work hard but are subject to some misfortune also receive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338298</id>
	<title>Re:I see how this works</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1267535220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In some cases, it <em>does</em> make sense to spread out the liability (medical care is one of those cases).</p><p>But this most certainly isn't one of those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In some cases , it does make sense to spread out the liability ( medical care is one of those cases ) .But this most certainly is n't one of those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some cases, it does make sense to spread out the liability (medical care is one of those cases).But this most certainly isn't one of those.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338534</id>
	<title>Why should we pay for infected machines?</title>
	<author>msobkow</author>
	<datestamp>1267536240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I fully agree with ISPs taking down the accounts of compromised machines, and calling the owner to let them know that they won't be allowed back online until they get the machine cleaned (which will likely cost money.)
</p><p>
I <i>do not</i> agree with the idea of a general "tax" to pay for the stupidity of people who insist on breaking the above common-sense rules.  Why should <i>I</i> pay for someone else's ignorant behaviour?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully agree with ISPs taking down the accounts of compromised machines , and calling the owner to let them know that they wo n't be allowed back online until they get the machine cleaned ( which will likely cost money .
) I do not agree with the idea of a general " tax " to pay for the stupidity of people who insist on breaking the above common-sense rules .
Why should I pay for someone else 's ignorant behaviour ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I fully agree with ISPs taking down the accounts of compromised machines, and calling the owner to let them know that they won't be allowed back online until they get the machine cleaned (which will likely cost money.
)

I do not agree with the idea of a general "tax" to pay for the stupidity of people who insist on breaking the above common-sense rules.
Why should I pay for someone else's ignorant behaviour?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338118</id>
	<title>Re:Free anti-virus with Internet service purchase!</title>
	<author>Tromad</author>
	<datestamp>1267534320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of these complaints are dealt with by Microsoft Security Essentials (maybe not H or D, but D is hardly a major complaint). I'm serious, it is install-and-forget. And most malware I've seen is lately is proxy through ads, flash, or javascript, requiring very little user action. So if you run Windows, unless you lock your browser down with noscript/adblock and don't run adobe software (or run your browser in a virtual machine) you pretty much need an antivirus, even if you have good habits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of these complaints are dealt with by Microsoft Security Essentials ( maybe not H or D , but D is hardly a major complaint ) .
I 'm serious , it is install-and-forget .
And most malware I 've seen is lately is proxy through ads , flash , or javascript , requiring very little user action .
So if you run Windows , unless you lock your browser down with noscript/adblock and do n't run adobe software ( or run your browser in a virtual machine ) you pretty much need an antivirus , even if you have good habits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of these complaints are dealt with by Microsoft Security Essentials (maybe not H or D, but D is hardly a major complaint).
I'm serious, it is install-and-forget.
And most malware I've seen is lately is proxy through ads, flash, or javascript, requiring very little user action.
So if you run Windows, unless you lock your browser down with noscript/adblock and don't run adobe software (or run your browser in a virtual machine) you pretty much need an antivirus, even if you have good habits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340034</id>
	<title>Re:Tax Credit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267547460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taxes are immoral, and Keynesian Economics is retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxes are immoral , and Keynesian Economics is retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taxes are immoral, and Keynesian Economics is retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337028</id>
	<title>Dear Microsoft Fuckwad:</title>
	<author>Chris Tucker</author>
	<datestamp>1267529820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run Mac OS X, you insensitive clod! Why should I pay to clean up YOUR CRAPPY OS?</p><p>Hey, here's an idea: Why not fix WINDOWS so it's not such promiscuous virus/trojan/worm whore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run Mac OS X , you insensitive clod !
Why should I pay to clean up YOUR CRAPPY OS ? Hey , here 's an idea : Why not fix WINDOWS so it 's not such promiscuous virus/trojan/worm whore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run Mac OS X, you insensitive clod!
Why should I pay to clean up YOUR CRAPPY OS?Hey, here's an idea: Why not fix WINDOWS so it's not such promiscuous virus/trojan/worm whore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338788</id>
	<title>Another tax</title>
	<author>aldld</author>
	<datestamp>1267537500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also tax people for not dusting out their computers, and smoking in front of their computers. I've had enough of opening people's computers to find every surface covered in a thick layer of dust, and once even some weird sticky stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also tax people for not dusting out their computers , and smoking in front of their computers .
I 've had enough of opening people 's computers to find every surface covered in a thick layer of dust , and once even some weird sticky stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also tax people for not dusting out their computers, and smoking in front of their computers.
I've had enough of opening people's computers to find every surface covered in a thick layer of dust, and once even some weird sticky stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337244</id>
	<title>Coming at it from the wrong way</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1267530540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than taxing everyone before the fact it would make more sense to have ISPs tax the owners of infected computers.  The government can develop a Snort-like product and mandate that ISPs use it.  Any users that generate more than X number of alerts in Y period of time get charged.  There would need to be some verification and appeal processes to weed out false positives.</p><p>If such an implementation is too expensive for a single ISP, move it up the chain.  Monitor the peering points.  Allow ISPs to tax each other on a quarterly basis.  The ISPs that get taxed can figure out a way to pass on the costs to their customers.</p><p>Personally I'm against the whole idea.  A tax requires some sort of monitoring.  I don't like the idea of being monitored.  If nothing else it adds latency and degrades the connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than taxing everyone before the fact it would make more sense to have ISPs tax the owners of infected computers .
The government can develop a Snort-like product and mandate that ISPs use it .
Any users that generate more than X number of alerts in Y period of time get charged .
There would need to be some verification and appeal processes to weed out false positives.If such an implementation is too expensive for a single ISP , move it up the chain .
Monitor the peering points .
Allow ISPs to tax each other on a quarterly basis .
The ISPs that get taxed can figure out a way to pass on the costs to their customers.Personally I 'm against the whole idea .
A tax requires some sort of monitoring .
I do n't like the idea of being monitored .
If nothing else it adds latency and degrades the connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than taxing everyone before the fact it would make more sense to have ISPs tax the owners of infected computers.
The government can develop a Snort-like product and mandate that ISPs use it.
Any users that generate more than X number of alerts in Y period of time get charged.
There would need to be some verification and appeal processes to weed out false positives.If such an implementation is too expensive for a single ISP, move it up the chain.
Monitor the peering points.
Allow ISPs to tax each other on a quarterly basis.
The ISPs that get taxed can figure out a way to pass on the costs to their customers.Personally I'm against the whole idea.
A tax requires some sort of monitoring.
I don't like the idea of being monitored.
If nothing else it adds latency and degrades the connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337574</id>
	<title>Emulate something that works horribly?</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1267531980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So since health care is a complete failure, they want to do the same thing with computers???  What non-sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So since health care is a complete failure , they want to do the same thing with computers ? ? ?
What non-sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So since health care is a complete failure, they want to do the same thing with computers???
What non-sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340346</id>
	<title>I'd prefer a fine</title>
	<author>Cicada7</author>
	<datestamp>1267550100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're too lazy to keep your lawn mowed, or to have someone else mow your lawn because you're not familiar with a mower, <i>I</i> certainly don't want to pay to have someone else do it for you.<br>
<br>
Keeping your lawn clean is your responsibility, not that of the public.  If your lawn becomes infested with virus carrying rodents because you can't be bothered, certainly a <i>fine</i> is appropriate.  My lawn has managed to stay neat and free of infestation for years without taxpayer's help, nor would I ask it of them.<br>
<br>
Oh wait, I meant to use a car analogy!  Nah, a tax that keeps my car running might actually be a good thing..</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're too lazy to keep your lawn mowed , or to have someone else mow your lawn because you 're not familiar with a mower , I certainly do n't want to pay to have someone else do it for you .
Keeping your lawn clean is your responsibility , not that of the public .
If your lawn becomes infested with virus carrying rodents because you ca n't be bothered , certainly a fine is appropriate .
My lawn has managed to stay neat and free of infestation for years without taxpayer 's help , nor would I ask it of them .
Oh wait , I meant to use a car analogy !
Nah , a tax that keeps my car running might actually be a good thing. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're too lazy to keep your lawn mowed, or to have someone else mow your lawn because you're not familiar with a mower, I certainly don't want to pay to have someone else do it for you.
Keeping your lawn clean is your responsibility, not that of the public.
If your lawn becomes infested with virus carrying rodents because you can't be bothered, certainly a fine is appropriate.
My lawn has managed to stay neat and free of infestation for years without taxpayer's help, nor would I ask it of them.
Oh wait, I meant to use a car analogy!
Nah, a tax that keeps my car running might actually be a good thing..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336896</id>
	<title>Re:I'm paying for WHAT?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1267529400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Thinboy,</p><p>We acknowledge your concern about the new Net Tax proposal, and would like to take a few moments to clarify our thoughts with you and other Microsoft product users. It has come to our understanding that there are many bad things on the internet. As you can tell from the last two decades, we here have been completely incapable at stopping these threats from manifesting. As such, our competitors are doing better and our profits are down. This usually means smaller bonuses for us in the Vice Presidency positions.</p><p>In order to keep our yachts and mercedes, I have come up with a new way to get money flowing back into our accounts, via the legal system. This means that we can take your money, without question, and that not doing so will be punishable by law. I hope this clears up any confusing misconceptions you may have had.</p><p>Thank you for your continued support,</p><p>-Microsoft Vice Presidents Committee</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Thinboy,We acknowledge your concern about the new Net Tax proposal , and would like to take a few moments to clarify our thoughts with you and other Microsoft product users .
It has come to our understanding that there are many bad things on the internet .
As you can tell from the last two decades , we here have been completely incapable at stopping these threats from manifesting .
As such , our competitors are doing better and our profits are down .
This usually means smaller bonuses for us in the Vice Presidency positions.In order to keep our yachts and mercedes , I have come up with a new way to get money flowing back into our accounts , via the legal system .
This means that we can take your money , without question , and that not doing so will be punishable by law .
I hope this clears up any confusing misconceptions you may have had.Thank you for your continued support,-Microsoft Vice Presidents Committee</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Thinboy,We acknowledge your concern about the new Net Tax proposal, and would like to take a few moments to clarify our thoughts with you and other Microsoft product users.
It has come to our understanding that there are many bad things on the internet.
As you can tell from the last two decades, we here have been completely incapable at stopping these threats from manifesting.
As such, our competitors are doing better and our profits are down.
This usually means smaller bonuses for us in the Vice Presidency positions.In order to keep our yachts and mercedes, I have come up with a new way to get money flowing back into our accounts, via the legal system.
This means that we can take your money, without question, and that not doing so will be punishable by law.
I hope this clears up any confusing misconceptions you may have had.Thank you for your continued support,-Microsoft Vice Presidents Committee</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31347726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31345580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31348906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31345510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31349256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31346346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31344118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31344564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31348062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_02_2025237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31345580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31349256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336946
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31348906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338102
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31347726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338118
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340788
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31346346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337184
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31341506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337308
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339830
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342568
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31348062
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340036
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31342120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31344564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31344118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31345510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31339956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31338420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31336892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31340646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_02_2025237.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_02_2025237.31337654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
