<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_04_192241</id>
	<title>Window Pain</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267730160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton contributes the following piece on trying to get some measure of satisfaction in the struggle against pop-up ads, writing

<i>"The most annoying thing about some pop-up ads, is that you have no way of knowing which ad-serving network served them or who the responsible parties are.  Could we reduce the incidence of illegal or deceptive pop-up ads, by giving users an easier way to trace their origin and figure out where to send complaints?  Here's one way to do it with a simple right-click."</i>

Read on for the rest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton contributes the following piece on trying to get some measure of satisfaction in the struggle against pop-up ads , writing " The most annoying thing about some pop-up ads , is that you have no way of knowing which ad-serving network served them or who the responsible parties are .
Could we reduce the incidence of illegal or deceptive pop-up ads , by giving users an easier way to trace their origin and figure out where to send complaints ?
Here 's one way to do it with a simple right-click .
" Read on for the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton contributes the following piece on trying to get some measure of satisfaction in the struggle against pop-up ads, writing

"The most annoying thing about some pop-up ads, is that you have no way of knowing which ad-serving network served them or who the responsible parties are.
Could we reduce the incidence of illegal or deceptive pop-up ads, by giving users an easier way to trace their origin and figure out where to send complaints?
Here's one way to do it with a simple right-click.
"

Read on for the rest.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>spatley</author>
	<datestamp>1267734720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but this article is discussing the state if the industry, not how an expert user can avoid popups and other scareware/malware.
<br>

There are loads of machines out there being infected today by doing normal browsing on reputable sites. With the current industry practice of n-number of redirects through n-number of networks for 3rd party ad serving it makes it near impossible to track down those of nefarious intent on an incident level.
<br>
<br>
Once again it is not the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.01\% of us slashdotters that are the problem with malware infections, it is the millions of joe sixpacks that care not to go through the trouble that it takes to install and then browse with these specialized browsers and plugins.
<br>
<br>
I for one agree, something must be done; and "open letters" like this are often how the conversation starts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but this article is discussing the state if the industry , not how an expert user can avoid popups and other scareware/malware .
There are loads of machines out there being infected today by doing normal browsing on reputable sites .
With the current industry practice of n-number of redirects through n-number of networks for 3rd party ad serving it makes it near impossible to track down those of nefarious intent on an incident level .
Once again it is not the .01 \ % of us slashdotters that are the problem with malware infections , it is the millions of joe sixpacks that care not to go through the trouble that it takes to install and then browse with these specialized browsers and plugins .
I for one agree , something must be done ; and " open letters " like this are often how the conversation starts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but this article is discussing the state if the industry, not how an expert user can avoid popups and other scareware/malware.
There are loads of machines out there being infected today by doing normal browsing on reputable sites.
With the current industry practice of n-number of redirects through n-number of networks for 3rd party ad serving it makes it near impossible to track down those of nefarious intent on an incident level.
Once again it is not the .01\% of us slashdotters that are the problem with malware infections, it is the millions of joe sixpacks that care not to go through the trouble that it takes to install and then browse with these specialized browsers and plugins.
I for one agree, something must be done; and "open letters" like this are often how the conversation starts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361648</id>
	<title>Re:First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267735800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parent is not a troll.  There's two huge red flags that popped up right at the beginning of TFS:<br> <br>

One, he's using Norton, which anybody knows is ripe for ridicule in this particular forum.<br> <br>

Two, as has and will be mentioned numerous times, Noscript, adblock, etc. make all this very academic (which, I know, is the point of Bennet's writings here, to explore concepts in theory).<br> <br>

So while I'm sure his opinion is interesting to whatever eggheads here like to digest his cromulent but otherwise semantic ramblings, the rest of us will do pretty much what parent has done and say "who gives a fuck?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is not a troll .
There 's two huge red flags that popped up right at the beginning of TFS : One , he 's using Norton , which anybody knows is ripe for ridicule in this particular forum .
Two , as has and will be mentioned numerous times , Noscript , adblock , etc .
make all this very academic ( which , I know , is the point of Bennet 's writings here , to explore concepts in theory ) .
So while I 'm sure his opinion is interesting to whatever eggheads here like to digest his cromulent but otherwise semantic ramblings , the rest of us will do pretty much what parent has done and say " who gives a fuck ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is not a troll.
There's two huge red flags that popped up right at the beginning of TFS: 

One, he's using Norton, which anybody knows is ripe for ridicule in this particular forum.
Two, as has and will be mentioned numerous times, Noscript, adblock, etc.
make all this very academic (which, I know, is the point of Bennet's writings here, to explore concepts in theory).
So while I'm sure his opinion is interesting to whatever eggheads here like to digest his cromulent but otherwise semantic ramblings, the rest of us will do pretty much what parent has done and say "who gives a fuck?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363442</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Thoreauly Nuts</author>
	<datestamp>1267700400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>are the problem with malware infections, it is the millions of joe sixpacks.</p></div><p>I disagree. It's the developers who are the problem by unnecessarily requiring said users to use insecure technologies to simply view a site that rarely has anything more than text and pictures on it.</p><p>The fact is that malware exists purely because of nerds. They either develop it directly, or they aid and abet it through the above. Joe Sixpack is nothing but a victim.</p><p>If the Internet were a car, web developers would require that air bags and seatbelts be removed in order for the car to function, they would install sharp metal spikes on the dash, and then blame the driver when he got in an accident and impaled himself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>are the problem with malware infections , it is the millions of joe sixpacks.I disagree .
It 's the developers who are the problem by unnecessarily requiring said users to use insecure technologies to simply view a site that rarely has anything more than text and pictures on it.The fact is that malware exists purely because of nerds .
They either develop it directly , or they aid and abet it through the above .
Joe Sixpack is nothing but a victim.If the Internet were a car , web developers would require that air bags and seatbelts be removed in order for the car to function , they would install sharp metal spikes on the dash , and then blame the driver when he got in an accident and impaled himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are the problem with malware infections, it is the millions of joe sixpacks.I disagree.
It's the developers who are the problem by unnecessarily requiring said users to use insecure technologies to simply view a site that rarely has anything more than text and pictures on it.The fact is that malware exists purely because of nerds.
They either develop it directly, or they aid and abet it through the above.
Joe Sixpack is nothing but a victim.If the Internet were a car, web developers would require that air bags and seatbelts be removed in order for the car to function, they would install sharp metal spikes on the dash, and then blame the driver when he got in an accident and impaled himself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363320</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267699800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The state of the industry is "broken".  I'd argue fundamentally.</p><p>We depend on blacklists maintained by people we don't know but want our money to protect us from other people we don't know who want our money.  We run crappy software (I'm looking at you, Symantec, but McAfee isn't far from my view) that slows down our computers and occasionally crashes then in an attempt to keep crappy software from slowing down our computers and occasionally crashing them.  We freak out when Google knows our home address, then enter our unlisted phone numbers onto online forums.</p><p>The major player in the software industry has encouraged piss-poor security practices for so long that we assume those practices are the expected user experience, so as soon as they finally mend their ways people bypass it anyway because they don't know what it all means.  When we start telling people that there are bad people out there and they should install locks on their electronic doors, there's a shitstorm about how hard it all is (if you can't replace the locks on your doors, you hire someone to do it for you.  Same with computers, find a computer literate buddy and open the creaky old wallet and buy 'em a 6-pack fercrissake, most of us will spend a good chunk of the day with you for nothing more than a 6-pack and heartfelt thanks - a decent denomination gift certificate to a good local restaurant would also be an excellent choice, or a decent bottle of wine, or offer some services from your area of expertise in return).</p><p>Windows XP can be made to be secure, but a lot of the software that runs on it doesn't like it that way.  Windows Vista or Seven are better choices for that, but you have to learn how they are trying to protect you, and work with them.  Linux will protect you by default and makes it harder for you to mess it up.  Linux can be complicated, but generally only during installation.  Once there, it is as as easy to use as Windows.  It's a tad different, expect to spend about a day getting used to where things are.  You'll have many of the same problems when you go from XP to Seven, though, and Linux is free.  There are hordes of people around you that will gladly install it for you or help you out.  If you spend most of your time doing email and the web, chances are you won't even notice the difference.  It's not for everyone, of course.  But you may not need to buy new hardware or spend any money at all to make that crusty trusty old Windows XP machine run faster.  In some cases, a LOT faster.  So you might save some serious money while you're at it.</p><p>You can't run all of your Windows software on Linux (though a lot can run just fine), and if you're a gamer forget it and stick with Windows.  However, if you need Windows, at least let someone have a look at it and install a few of the FREE tools that can help protect you.</p><p>Firefox is slightly different from IE, but you will hardly notice.  Figure a 15-30 minute learning curve.  And it does some pretty cool stuff.  Windows or Linux, it's just a good idea.</p><p>NoScript requires that you intervene whenever you feel you can trust a web site and give that site permission to run stuff.  It's a pain, sure, but so is putting on your seatbelt or checking your brakes from time to time.  After about a week, it becomes a habit, and all the sites you frequent are whitelisted anyway.  "Hey, this site doesn't look right, did any scripts get blocked - and is getting the site to look perfect worth the risk of unblocking them?"</p><p>Too many of us have been too complacent about security for too long.  The computer is an appliance, but we also keep really important data on it and other people want that data, and we need to start acting accordingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The state of the industry is " broken " .
I 'd argue fundamentally.We depend on blacklists maintained by people we do n't know but want our money to protect us from other people we do n't know who want our money .
We run crappy software ( I 'm looking at you , Symantec , but McAfee is n't far from my view ) that slows down our computers and occasionally crashes then in an attempt to keep crappy software from slowing down our computers and occasionally crashing them .
We freak out when Google knows our home address , then enter our unlisted phone numbers onto online forums.The major player in the software industry has encouraged piss-poor security practices for so long that we assume those practices are the expected user experience , so as soon as they finally mend their ways people bypass it anyway because they do n't know what it all means .
When we start telling people that there are bad people out there and they should install locks on their electronic doors , there 's a shitstorm about how hard it all is ( if you ca n't replace the locks on your doors , you hire someone to do it for you .
Same with computers , find a computer literate buddy and open the creaky old wallet and buy 'em a 6-pack fercrissake , most of us will spend a good chunk of the day with you for nothing more than a 6-pack and heartfelt thanks - a decent denomination gift certificate to a good local restaurant would also be an excellent choice , or a decent bottle of wine , or offer some services from your area of expertise in return ) .Windows XP can be made to be secure , but a lot of the software that runs on it does n't like it that way .
Windows Vista or Seven are better choices for that , but you have to learn how they are trying to protect you , and work with them .
Linux will protect you by default and makes it harder for you to mess it up .
Linux can be complicated , but generally only during installation .
Once there , it is as as easy to use as Windows .
It 's a tad different , expect to spend about a day getting used to where things are .
You 'll have many of the same problems when you go from XP to Seven , though , and Linux is free .
There are hordes of people around you that will gladly install it for you or help you out .
If you spend most of your time doing email and the web , chances are you wo n't even notice the difference .
It 's not for everyone , of course .
But you may not need to buy new hardware or spend any money at all to make that crusty trusty old Windows XP machine run faster .
In some cases , a LOT faster .
So you might save some serious money while you 're at it.You ca n't run all of your Windows software on Linux ( though a lot can run just fine ) , and if you 're a gamer forget it and stick with Windows .
However , if you need Windows , at least let someone have a look at it and install a few of the FREE tools that can help protect you.Firefox is slightly different from IE , but you will hardly notice .
Figure a 15-30 minute learning curve .
And it does some pretty cool stuff .
Windows or Linux , it 's just a good idea.NoScript requires that you intervene whenever you feel you can trust a web site and give that site permission to run stuff .
It 's a pain , sure , but so is putting on your seatbelt or checking your brakes from time to time .
After about a week , it becomes a habit , and all the sites you frequent are whitelisted anyway .
" Hey , this site does n't look right , did any scripts get blocked - and is getting the site to look perfect worth the risk of unblocking them ?
" Too many of us have been too complacent about security for too long .
The computer is an appliance , but we also keep really important data on it and other people want that data , and we need to start acting accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The state of the industry is "broken".
I'd argue fundamentally.We depend on blacklists maintained by people we don't know but want our money to protect us from other people we don't know who want our money.
We run crappy software (I'm looking at you, Symantec, but McAfee isn't far from my view) that slows down our computers and occasionally crashes then in an attempt to keep crappy software from slowing down our computers and occasionally crashing them.
We freak out when Google knows our home address, then enter our unlisted phone numbers onto online forums.The major player in the software industry has encouraged piss-poor security practices for so long that we assume those practices are the expected user experience, so as soon as they finally mend their ways people bypass it anyway because they don't know what it all means.
When we start telling people that there are bad people out there and they should install locks on their electronic doors, there's a shitstorm about how hard it all is (if you can't replace the locks on your doors, you hire someone to do it for you.
Same with computers, find a computer literate buddy and open the creaky old wallet and buy 'em a 6-pack fercrissake, most of us will spend a good chunk of the day with you for nothing more than a 6-pack and heartfelt thanks - a decent denomination gift certificate to a good local restaurant would also be an excellent choice, or a decent bottle of wine, or offer some services from your area of expertise in return).Windows XP can be made to be secure, but a lot of the software that runs on it doesn't like it that way.
Windows Vista or Seven are better choices for that, but you have to learn how they are trying to protect you, and work with them.
Linux will protect you by default and makes it harder for you to mess it up.
Linux can be complicated, but generally only during installation.
Once there, it is as as easy to use as Windows.
It's a tad different, expect to spend about a day getting used to where things are.
You'll have many of the same problems when you go from XP to Seven, though, and Linux is free.
There are hordes of people around you that will gladly install it for you or help you out.
If you spend most of your time doing email and the web, chances are you won't even notice the difference.
It's not for everyone, of course.
But you may not need to buy new hardware or spend any money at all to make that crusty trusty old Windows XP machine run faster.
In some cases, a LOT faster.
So you might save some serious money while you're at it.You can't run all of your Windows software on Linux (though a lot can run just fine), and if you're a gamer forget it and stick with Windows.
However, if you need Windows, at least let someone have a look at it and install a few of the FREE tools that can help protect you.Firefox is slightly different from IE, but you will hardly notice.
Figure a 15-30 minute learning curve.
And it does some pretty cool stuff.
Windows or Linux, it's just a good idea.NoScript requires that you intervene whenever you feel you can trust a web site and give that site permission to run stuff.
It's a pain, sure, but so is putting on your seatbelt or checking your brakes from time to time.
After about a week, it becomes a habit, and all the sites you frequent are whitelisted anyway.
"Hey, this site doesn't look right, did any scripts get blocked - and is getting the site to look perfect worth the risk of unblocking them?
"Too many of us have been too complacent about security for too long.
The computer is an appliance, but we also keep really important data on it and other people want that data, and we need to start acting accordingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363456</id>
	<title>Re:Norton Anti-virus</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267700460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should ask him what nobody ever attempted before: Running Crysis on HIGH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should ask him what nobody ever attempted before : Running Crysis on HIGH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should ask him what nobody ever attempted before: Running Crysis on HIGH.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361824</id>
	<title>Re:Norton Anti-virus</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267693380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>he has a computer powerful enough to get pop-up ads while running Norton Anti-Virus?</i></p><p>Yes, but unfortunately it has terrible pains running down the diodes in its left leg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he has a computer powerful enough to get pop-up ads while running Norton Anti-Virus ? Yes , but unfortunately it has terrible pains running down the diodes in its left leg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he has a computer powerful enough to get pop-up ads while running Norton Anti-Virus?Yes, but unfortunately it has terrible pains running down the diodes in its left leg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361230</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267733820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>who the F&amp;ck cares</htmltext>
<tokenext>who the F&amp;ck cares</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who the F&amp;ck cares</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361870</id>
	<title>Stupid?</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1267693560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know that when I see a stupid ad pretending to "scan" my computer for viruses, I get unreasonably disgusted, not from seeing the ad itself (which I can easily ignore), but from knowing that the advertiser has probably fleeced people of thousands of dollars with that ad.</p></div><p>Ethics aside, those "scanning" ads are really quite ingenious for their ability to elicit a true "what the fuck" reaction when first encountered.
</p><p>
I am far more offended by that "lose belly fat" ad that AdSense drops seemingly everywhere...knowing that someone sat down and actually produced that uninspired elementary school-looking advertisement blows my mind.  Moreover, it has been running for ages, so you know it is generating all sorts of clicks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that when I see a stupid ad pretending to " scan " my computer for viruses , I get unreasonably disgusted , not from seeing the ad itself ( which I can easily ignore ) , but from knowing that the advertiser has probably fleeced people of thousands of dollars with that ad.Ethics aside , those " scanning " ads are really quite ingenious for their ability to elicit a true " what the fuck " reaction when first encountered .
I am far more offended by that " lose belly fat " ad that AdSense drops seemingly everywhere...knowing that someone sat down and actually produced that uninspired elementary school-looking advertisement blows my mind .
Moreover , it has been running for ages , so you know it is generating all sorts of clicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that when I see a stupid ad pretending to "scan" my computer for viruses, I get unreasonably disgusted, not from seeing the ad itself (which I can easily ignore), but from knowing that the advertiser has probably fleeced people of thousands of dollars with that ad.Ethics aside, those "scanning" ads are really quite ingenious for their ability to elicit a true "what the fuck" reaction when first encountered.
I am far more offended by that "lose belly fat" ad that AdSense drops seemingly everywhere...knowing that someone sat down and actually produced that uninspired elementary school-looking advertisement blows my mind.
Moreover, it has been running for ages, so you know it is generating all sorts of clicks.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361702</id>
	<title>Patronization</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1267735920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a solution, don't patronize any site that uses those types of advertisements. There is NOTHING on the site you can't get elsewhere with less crap. NOTHING.</p><p>I don't go to sites that have crap splashing all over my screen. I'll do without thank you very much. If a site expects me to use IE, I won't go. If a site wants to bombard me with flash for no reason other than to look<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...well flashy, then I won't go. If a site wants to use javascript to do all sorts of stupid stuff to "look pretty", then it isn't getting me to visit again.</p><p>If you go away, and don't return, and you find sites that give you what you want without all the crapware pieces then they will learn. As for idiots who don't understand, stupid should hurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a solution , do n't patronize any site that uses those types of advertisements .
There is NOTHING on the site you ca n't get elsewhere with less crap .
NOTHING.I do n't go to sites that have crap splashing all over my screen .
I 'll do without thank you very much .
If a site expects me to use IE , I wo n't go .
If a site wants to bombard me with flash for no reason other than to look ...well flashy , then I wo n't go .
If a site wants to use javascript to do all sorts of stupid stuff to " look pretty " , then it is n't getting me to visit again.If you go away , and do n't return , and you find sites that give you what you want without all the crapware pieces then they will learn .
As for idiots who do n't understand , stupid should hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a solution, don't patronize any site that uses those types of advertisements.
There is NOTHING on the site you can't get elsewhere with less crap.
NOTHING.I don't go to sites that have crap splashing all over my screen.
I'll do without thank you very much.
If a site expects me to use IE, I won't go.
If a site wants to bombard me with flash for no reason other than to look ...well flashy, then I won't go.
If a site wants to use javascript to do all sorts of stupid stuff to "look pretty", then it isn't getting me to visit again.If you go away, and don't return, and you find sites that give you what you want without all the crapware pieces then they will learn.
As for idiots who don't understand, stupid should hurt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367670</id>
	<title>Re:Patronization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267727640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a site wants to bombard me with flash for no reason other than to <b>look<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...well flashy</b>, then I won't go. If a site wants to use javascript to do all sorts of <b>stupid stuff to "look pretty"</b>, then it isn't getting me to visit again.</p></div><p>

Which reminds me, how's your stay at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. treating ya?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a site wants to bombard me with flash for no reason other than to look ...well flashy , then I wo n't go .
If a site wants to use javascript to do all sorts of stupid stuff to " look pretty " , then it is n't getting me to visit again .
Which reminds me , how 's your stay at / .
treating ya ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a site wants to bombard me with flash for no reason other than to look ...well flashy, then I won't go.
If a site wants to use javascript to do all sorts of stupid stuff to "look pretty", then it isn't getting me to visit again.
Which reminds me, how's your stay at /.
treating ya?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362128</id>
	<title>stopped reading after Norton</title>
	<author>beadwindow</author>
	<datestamp>1267694820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>stopped reading after Norton</htmltext>
<tokenext>stopped reading after Norton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stopped reading after Norton</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361778</id>
	<title>Re:Jon Katz, is that you?</title>
	<author>ThePlague</author>
	<datestamp>1267736340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He pulled that stunt even before slashdot.  He started out on hotwire, until he got laid off there as a prelude to the dotcom bubble burst back in '99.  He was at newstrolls for a while gratis, since that's where most of the regulars at hotwire went once they shut down their (primitive but popular at the time) message board.  He was generally disliked there as well.  He really hit his stride of unpopularity on slashdot, though, and was pretty much single-handedly responsible for the clamors for an "ignore stories by" feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He pulled that stunt even before slashdot .
He started out on hotwire , until he got laid off there as a prelude to the dotcom bubble burst back in '99 .
He was at newstrolls for a while gratis , since that 's where most of the regulars at hotwire went once they shut down their ( primitive but popular at the time ) message board .
He was generally disliked there as well .
He really hit his stride of unpopularity on slashdot , though , and was pretty much single-handedly responsible for the clamors for an " ignore stories by " feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He pulled that stunt even before slashdot.
He started out on hotwire, until he got laid off there as a prelude to the dotcom bubble burst back in '99.
He was at newstrolls for a while gratis, since that's where most of the regulars at hotwire went once they shut down their (primitive but popular at the time) message board.
He was generally disliked there as well.
He really hit his stride of unpopularity on slashdot, though, and was pretty much single-handedly responsible for the clamors for an "ignore stories by" feature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31366306</id>
	<title>Not a pointless article contrary to popular belief</title>
	<author>SillySixPins</author>
	<datestamp>1267716840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'Twas lengthy indeed, but I enjoyed entertaining the idea and its many facets.

Good post, just watch the brevity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'T was lengthy indeed , but I enjoyed entertaining the idea and its many facets .
Good post , just watch the brevity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Twas lengthy indeed, but I enjoyed entertaining the idea and its many facets.
Good post, just watch the brevity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363244</id>
	<title>Re:Out Come the Wolves</title>
	<author>Mastacheata87</author>
	<datestamp>1267699500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have a look at the other article of this author he also references, in which he talks about allowing intrusive ads for free premium services that serve ads in order to make up for the cost of running these. In special he talks about web/cgi Proxy services that have to change their IP multiple times a day in order to provide their service to users in censoring countries and that allowing even more intrusive ads for services like these is ok with him and should be with all of us.

I'd also like to see such a function. But more as a developer tool than for reporting abusive popups.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have a look at the other article of this author he also references , in which he talks about allowing intrusive ads for free premium services that serve ads in order to make up for the cost of running these .
In special he talks about web/cgi Proxy services that have to change their IP multiple times a day in order to provide their service to users in censoring countries and that allowing even more intrusive ads for services like these is ok with him and should be with all of us .
I 'd also like to see such a function .
But more as a developer tool than for reporting abusive popups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have a look at the other article of this author he also references, in which he talks about allowing intrusive ads for free premium services that serve ads in order to make up for the cost of running these.
In special he talks about web/cgi Proxy services that have to change their IP multiple times a day in order to provide their service to users in censoring countries and that allowing even more intrusive ads for services like these is ok with him and should be with all of us.
I'd also like to see such a function.
But more as a developer tool than for reporting abusive popups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361482</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That or privoxy with the browser of your choice.<br> <br>But back to TFA, I can't believe it didn't occur to Haselton that sending email to a site that has these ads is a bad idea that will probably get you on more spam lists. People who have these ads are part of the problem for a reason, and the reason is usually greed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That or privoxy with the browser of your choice .
But back to TFA , I ca n't believe it did n't occur to Haselton that sending email to a site that has these ads is a bad idea that will probably get you on more spam lists .
People who have these ads are part of the problem for a reason , and the reason is usually greed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That or privoxy with the browser of your choice.
But back to TFA, I can't believe it didn't occur to Haselton that sending email to a site that has these ads is a bad idea that will probably get you on more spam lists.
People who have these ads are part of the problem for a reason, and the reason is usually greed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361314</id>
	<title>what ads?</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1267734120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What ads?</p><p>&gt; head -5<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts<br>##<br># Host Database<br>#<br># This MVPS HOSTS file is a free download from:<br># <a href="http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/" title="mvps.org">http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/</a> [mvps.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ads ? &gt; head -5 /etc/hosts # # # Host Database # # This MVPS HOSTS file is a free download from : # http : //www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/ [ mvps.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ads?&gt; head -5 /etc/hosts### Host Database## This MVPS HOSTS file is a free download from:# http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/ [mvps.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31366042</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>phillipsjk256</author>
	<datestamp>1267714860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't need to install <em>any</em> Plug-ins to avoid the more obnoxious ADs: simply disable client-side scripting and don't install Flash/Silverlight in the first place. It has always struck be a strange that you are supposed to install plug-ins for extra functionality, then even more plug-in to &quot;roll-back&quot; that extra functionality.</p><p>I understand the &quot;Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocker&quot; method allows you to whitelist certain sites. However, some web-sites prohibit AD blocking software as part of their Terms Of Service. If you don't install the plug-ins in the first place, you are not blocking the ADs. Your browser is simply incapable of displaying them! Sure a few &quot;fringe&quot; site like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">YouTube</a> [youtube.com] and <a href="http://www.ubi.com/ENCA/default.aspx" title="ubi.com" rel="nofollow">Ubisoft</a> [ubi.com] won't work, but they obviously don't want your business anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need to install any Plug-ins to avoid the more obnoxious ADs : simply disable client-side scripting and do n't install Flash/Silverlight in the first place .
It has always struck be a strange that you are supposed to install plug-ins for extra functionality , then even more plug-in to " roll-back " that extra functionality.I understand the " Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocker " method allows you to whitelist certain sites .
However , some web-sites prohibit AD blocking software as part of their Terms Of Service .
If you do n't install the plug-ins in the first place , you are not blocking the ADs .
Your browser is simply incapable of displaying them !
Sure a few " fringe " site like YouTube [ youtube.com ] and Ubisoft [ ubi.com ] wo n't work , but they obviously do n't want your business anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need to install any Plug-ins to avoid the more obnoxious ADs: simply disable client-side scripting and don't install Flash/Silverlight in the first place.
It has always struck be a strange that you are supposed to install plug-ins for extra functionality, then even more plug-in to "roll-back" that extra functionality.I understand the "Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocker" method allows you to whitelist certain sites.
However, some web-sites prohibit AD blocking software as part of their Terms Of Service.
If you don't install the plug-ins in the first place, you are not blocking the ADs.
Your browser is simply incapable of displaying them!
Sure a few "fringe" site like YouTube [youtube.com] and Ubisoft [ubi.com] won't work, but they obviously don't want your business anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361768</id>
	<title>Re:This explains a lot.</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1267736340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally off topic, Starbuck's CEO has flat out stated they aren't in the coffee business, they are in the dairy business. They make their coffee taste like such crap, the only way you can drink it is as a caramel frapamochachino loaded with milk. "Coffee" being just one of the many flavors you can buy with Starbuck's milk products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally off topic , Starbuck 's CEO has flat out stated they are n't in the coffee business , they are in the dairy business .
They make their coffee taste like such crap , the only way you can drink it is as a caramel frapamochachino loaded with milk .
" Coffee " being just one of the many flavors you can buy with Starbuck 's milk products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally off topic, Starbuck's CEO has flat out stated they aren't in the coffee business, they are in the dairy business.
They make their coffee taste like such crap, the only way you can drink it is as a caramel frapamochachino loaded with milk.
"Coffee" being just one of the many flavors you can buy with Starbuck's milk products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361254</id>
	<title>TL;DR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267733940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can i get a reader's digest version?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can i get a reader 's digest version ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can i get a reader's digest version?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361944</id>
	<title>Pop Ups</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1267693860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I See a time when pop-up ads<br>or Help files are no longer needed<br>on wEb sites and we can just think<br>to Control our web browsers.<br>I Am a firm beliver that this will happen<br>aNd look forward to it.<br>IrRational advetisers are the source of pop ups.<br>To Educate people on how to browse is essential.<br>My bAit and switch idea for spammers should be effective.<br>Is buDding technology out there going to solve this<br>Or sYstems of control needed in meat space versus cyberspace?<br>As COntrols advance into HTML-5 how can we combat the Pop-Up?<br>I TUrn to the wisdom of my elders for advice on<br>a Realistic approach to pop up ads.<br>I Personally use a pop up block and it works but<br>on Other platforms this may not be an option.<br>One Such solution is adware and is well liked.<br>But sTandards for advertising are loose at best.<br>I was Submitting RFCs for advertising standards but gave up.</p><p>Given Los Angles Drag On Social servies it is clear they SERIOUS HELP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I See a time when pop-up adsor Help files are no longer neededon wEb sites and we can just thinkto Control our web browsers.I Am a firm beliver that this will happenaNd look forward to it.IrRational advetisers are the source of pop ups.To Educate people on how to browse is essential.My bAit and switch idea for spammers should be effective.Is buDding technology out there going to solve thisOr sYstems of control needed in meat space versus cyberspace ? As COntrols advance into HTML-5 how can we combat the Pop-Up ? I TUrn to the wisdom of my elders for advice ona Realistic approach to pop up ads.I Personally use a pop up block and it works buton Other platforms this may not be an option.One Such solution is adware and is well liked.But sTandards for advertising are loose at best.I was Submitting RFCs for advertising standards but gave up.Given Los Angles Drag On Social servies it is clear they SERIOUS HELP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I See a time when pop-up adsor Help files are no longer neededon wEb sites and we can just thinkto Control our web browsers.I Am a firm beliver that this will happenaNd look forward to it.IrRational advetisers are the source of pop ups.To Educate people on how to browse is essential.My bAit and switch idea for spammers should be effective.Is buDding technology out there going to solve thisOr sYstems of control needed in meat space versus cyberspace?As COntrols advance into HTML-5 how can we combat the Pop-Up?I TUrn to the wisdom of my elders for advice ona Realistic approach to pop up ads.I Personally use a pop up block and it works buton Other platforms this may not be an option.One Such solution is adware and is well liked.But sTandards for advertising are loose at best.I was Submitting RFCs for advertising standards but gave up.Given Los Angles Drag On Social servies it is clear they SERIOUS HELP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361290</id>
	<title>Out Come the Wolves</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1267734060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Occasionally while I'm surfing the web and a pop-up ad opens, my Norton Anti-Virus<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>Huh, I fail to identify with your underlying scenario.  I have the latest vanilla Firefox here (not even adblock or noscript) and it does a mighty fine job of blocking popups and letting me know if it did with a tiny bar that comes down.  Now, if I didn't do something that would cause a popup on the site, I just ignore it.  This works 99\% of the time.  The other 1\% is some less than reputable video site using my "click to play" action in a Flash video to launch a popup that Firefox doesn't catch.  Oh well, I make due just fine.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm glad that Norton blocks the malware attacks, since even though I always have all the latest security patches installed for Internet Explorer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>This would be the point in your investigative security piece (which you <b>are</b> delivering to a pack of highly caffenated, know-it-all, technology sector employed nerds) that you point out that you are only using this to mimic the average user's experience or you're doing this to criticize Microsoft or just that you normally use a more secure solution than this.  Otherwise at best your credibility may suffer and at worse a frothing melee of insults will ensue<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... some possibly in Klingon delivered from a goeteed man pushing three bills.  I find these to be most unpleasant experiences<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... both as the victim and the bystander so I wish you the best of luck and remind the audience to please be gentle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Occasionally while I 'm surfing the web and a pop-up ad opens , my Norton Anti-Virus ... Huh , I fail to identify with your underlying scenario .
I have the latest vanilla Firefox here ( not even adblock or noscript ) and it does a mighty fine job of blocking popups and letting me know if it did with a tiny bar that comes down .
Now , if I did n't do something that would cause a popup on the site , I just ignore it .
This works 99 \ % of the time .
The other 1 \ % is some less than reputable video site using my " click to play " action in a Flash video to launch a popup that Firefox does n't catch .
Oh well , I make due just fine.I 'm glad that Norton blocks the malware attacks , since even though I always have all the latest security patches installed for Internet Explorer ... This would be the point in your investigative security piece ( which you are delivering to a pack of highly caffenated , know-it-all , technology sector employed nerds ) that you point out that you are only using this to mimic the average user 's experience or you 're doing this to criticize Microsoft or just that you normally use a more secure solution than this .
Otherwise at best your credibility may suffer and at worse a frothing melee of insults will ensue ... some possibly in Klingon delivered from a goeteed man pushing three bills .
I find these to be most unpleasant experiences ... both as the victim and the bystander so I wish you the best of luck and remind the audience to please be gentle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Occasionally while I'm surfing the web and a pop-up ad opens, my Norton Anti-Virus ... Huh, I fail to identify with your underlying scenario.
I have the latest vanilla Firefox here (not even adblock or noscript) and it does a mighty fine job of blocking popups and letting me know if it did with a tiny bar that comes down.
Now, if I didn't do something that would cause a popup on the site, I just ignore it.
This works 99\% of the time.
The other 1\% is some less than reputable video site using my "click to play" action in a Flash video to launch a popup that Firefox doesn't catch.
Oh well, I make due just fine.I'm glad that Norton blocks the malware attacks, since even though I always have all the latest security patches installed for Internet Explorer ... This would be the point in your investigative security piece (which you are delivering to a pack of highly caffenated, know-it-all, technology sector employed nerds) that you point out that you are only using this to mimic the average user's experience or you're doing this to criticize Microsoft or just that you normally use a more secure solution than this.
Otherwise at best your credibility may suffer and at worse a frothing melee of insults will ensue ... some possibly in Klingon delivered from a goeteed man pushing three bills.
I find these to be most unpleasant experiences ... both as the victim and the bystander so I wish you the best of luck and remind the audience to please be gentle.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361780</id>
	<title>Re:Ad-Block Perhaps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267736340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy wouldn't use adblock though.  You see, he not only supports popups in general, he actually proposes <i>even worse ads</i> as a good thing.  This guy is a certified idiot and slashdot needs to stop giving him attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy would n't use adblock though .
You see , he not only supports popups in general , he actually proposes even worse ads as a good thing .
This guy is a certified idiot and slashdot needs to stop giving him attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy wouldn't use adblock though.
You see, he not only supports popups in general, he actually proposes even worse ads as a good thing.
This guy is a certified idiot and slashdot needs to stop giving him attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362274</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267695660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh <i>yeah, yeah</i>, look at ME, I'm so SPECIAL.  I'm special because I run LINUX.  That makes my computer SAFE.  Yeah, nothing can mess up my computer because I run LINUX, the SAFEST operating system.</p><p>No one will ever be able to write a virus or exploit for MY system, nosiree.  That makes me superior to all those that use the *popular* OS out there.</p><p>Never mind that the only reason no one has written a virus is because virtually no home users are on Linux.  Never mind that one day someone will find a jagged shard of glass in the code and rape me with it, once enough non-security experts start using Linux.</p><p>Nope, I'm SAFE, which is why I'm BETTER than you.</p><p>(Where does this attitude come from?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , yeah , look at ME , I 'm so SPECIAL .
I 'm special because I run LINUX .
That makes my computer SAFE .
Yeah , nothing can mess up my computer because I run LINUX , the SAFEST operating system.No one will ever be able to write a virus or exploit for MY system , nosiree .
That makes me superior to all those that use the * popular * OS out there.Never mind that the only reason no one has written a virus is because virtually no home users are on Linux .
Never mind that one day someone will find a jagged shard of glass in the code and rape me with it , once enough non-security experts start using Linux.Nope , I 'm SAFE , which is why I 'm BETTER than you .
( Where does this attitude come from ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah, yeah, look at ME, I'm so SPECIAL.
I'm special because I run LINUX.
That makes my computer SAFE.
Yeah, nothing can mess up my computer because I run LINUX, the SAFEST operating system.No one will ever be able to write a virus or exploit for MY system, nosiree.
That makes me superior to all those that use the *popular* OS out there.Never mind that the only reason no one has written a virus is because virtually no home users are on Linux.
Never mind that one day someone will find a jagged shard of glass in the code and rape me with it, once enough non-security experts start using Linux.Nope, I'm SAFE, which is why I'm BETTER than you.
(Where does this attitude come from?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31364126</id>
	<title>Re:Jon Katz, is that you?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1267703580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>ie the Commodore 64 in Afghanistan, remember that?</i> <br> <br>
The correspondent said he had an "ancient commodore computer".  Commodore did make a few machines with enough juice to play movies.  There was even an MPEG decoder for the Amiga, so it's not out of the question entirely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ie the Commodore 64 in Afghanistan , remember that ?
The correspondent said he had an " ancient commodore computer " .
Commodore did make a few machines with enough juice to play movies .
There was even an MPEG decoder for the Amiga , so it 's not out of the question entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ie the Commodore 64 in Afghanistan, remember that?
The correspondent said he had an "ancient commodore computer".
Commodore did make a few machines with enough juice to play movies.
There was even an MPEG decoder for the Amiga, so it's not out of the question entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31368850</id>
	<title>Re:A change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267785540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well done, voice your outrage here. I'm sure plenty of marketers read slashdot for your opinions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well done , voice your outrage here .
I 'm sure plenty of marketers read slashdot for your opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well done, voice your outrage here.
I'm sure plenty of marketers read slashdot for your opinions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361556</id>
	<title>Don't use IE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267735320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use firefox for everything except active directory related stuff at work. I have flashblock, adblock plus, ghostery, and a few other add-ons that make firefox fast as F@#$. I get virtually no pop-ups (only things i click that are supposed to open new windows). All the known malicious sites are blocked by adblock because it automatically updates based on your subscription.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use firefox for everything except active directory related stuff at work .
I have flashblock , adblock plus , ghostery , and a few other add-ons that make firefox fast as F @ # $ .
I get virtually no pop-ups ( only things i click that are supposed to open new windows ) .
All the known malicious sites are blocked by adblock because it automatically updates based on your subscription .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use firefox for everything except active directory related stuff at work.
I have flashblock, adblock plus, ghostery, and a few other add-ons that make firefox fast as F@#$.
I get virtually no pop-ups (only things i click that are supposed to open new windows).
All the known malicious sites are blocked by adblock because it automatically updates based on your subscription.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31364714</id>
	<title>wrong direction.  push the redirects to trash.</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1267705980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to be more precise, all decent browsers allow blocking certain sites.</p><p>if you can detect a redirect to evilsite.domain, just create a "no-way" entry for evilsite.domain in the table.  the ideal traceback code would allow you to hover over the bad site and ask if you want that site blocked.</p><p>one-and-done, that's how to fix the evil site guys.  eventually ad servers that want to stay in business and log the site entries would start policing themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to be more precise , all decent browsers allow blocking certain sites.if you can detect a redirect to evilsite.domain , just create a " no-way " entry for evilsite.domain in the table .
the ideal traceback code would allow you to hover over the bad site and ask if you want that site blocked.one-and-done , that 's how to fix the evil site guys .
eventually ad servers that want to stay in business and log the site entries would start policing themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to be more precise, all decent browsers allow blocking certain sites.if you can detect a redirect to evilsite.domain, just create a "no-way" entry for evilsite.domain in the table.
the ideal traceback code would allow you to hover over the bad site and ask if you want that site blocked.one-and-done, that's how to fix the evil site guys.
eventually ad servers that want to stay in business and log the site entries would start policing themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361452</id>
	<title>Re:TL;DR</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1267734720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Can i get a reader's digest version?</i></p><p>Pop up windows and malware make Hulk angry!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can i get a reader 's digest version ? Pop up windows and malware make Hulk angry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Can i get a reader's digest version?Pop up windows and malware make Hulk angry!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365852</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1267713420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't take an expert user to add a couple plugins, it just takes a bit of friendly advice from an expert. If enough people use them, they might become part of the browser by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't take an expert user to add a couple plugins , it just takes a bit of friendly advice from an expert .
If enough people use them , they might become part of the browser by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't take an expert user to add a couple plugins, it just takes a bit of friendly advice from an expert.
If enough people use them, they might become part of the browser by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31366284</id>
	<title>Funny...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267716660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parent post goes on and on about how broken everything is, but when he hits on Linux, he becomes a salesman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent post goes on and on about how broken everything is , but when he hits on Linux , he becomes a salesman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent post goes on and on about how broken everything is, but when he hits on Linux, he becomes a salesman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365806</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Bazouel</author>
	<datestamp>1267713060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they can install a single program, Opera, and be done with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they can install a single program , Opera , and be done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they can install a single program, Opera, and be done with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362818</id>
	<title>Re:Jeezus H. Christ</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1267698060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh yeah , you're grammar is atrocious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , you 're grammar is atrocious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah , you're grammar is atrocious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363892</id>
	<title>Somebody mod parent up - only on-topic post?</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1267702560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean seriously... almost -all- of the replies here have been about the usage of IE in general, or how he should just install popup blockers (he has one.. granted, it's Norton's, which results in the other replies ridiculing him for that), put sites in the hosts file, etc. etc. etc.</p><p>And you, good sir pizza, seem to be the only one who actually addresses his writings; although after a quick look at Fiddler - it doesn't seem like it would be able to give you a clear path from popup to originating script to originating iframe in originating page?</p><p>As that, I believe, is what the author was actually looking for.  And I agree that it would be most useful - as trying to figure it out from all sorts of encoded javascript crap in temp filenames (if even stored at all), that it's not worth the bother.  If it becomes worth the bother (by making it stupid-simple), then at least that gives a starting point for any potential further action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean seriously... almost -all- of the replies here have been about the usage of IE in general , or how he should just install popup blockers ( he has one.. granted , it 's Norton 's , which results in the other replies ridiculing him for that ) , put sites in the hosts file , etc .
etc. etc.And you , good sir pizza , seem to be the only one who actually addresses his writings ; although after a quick look at Fiddler - it does n't seem like it would be able to give you a clear path from popup to originating script to originating iframe in originating page ? As that , I believe , is what the author was actually looking for .
And I agree that it would be most useful - as trying to figure it out from all sorts of encoded javascript crap in temp filenames ( if even stored at all ) , that it 's not worth the bother .
If it becomes worth the bother ( by making it stupid-simple ) , then at least that gives a starting point for any potential further action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean seriously... almost -all- of the replies here have been about the usage of IE in general, or how he should just install popup blockers (he has one.. granted, it's Norton's, which results in the other replies ridiculing him for that), put sites in the hosts file, etc.
etc. etc.And you, good sir pizza, seem to be the only one who actually addresses his writings; although after a quick look at Fiddler - it doesn't seem like it would be able to give you a clear path from popup to originating script to originating iframe in originating page?As that, I believe, is what the author was actually looking for.
And I agree that it would be most useful - as trying to figure it out from all sorts of encoded javascript crap in temp filenames (if even stored at all), that it's not worth the bother.
If it becomes worth the bother (by making it stupid-simple), then at least that gives a starting point for any potential further action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363242</id>
	<title>A bit long winded summary?</title>
	<author>ukemike</author>
	<datestamp>1267699500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this becomes a normal Summary we'll have to retire "RTFM" and start using "RTFS."  I sure didn't read it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this becomes a normal Summary we 'll have to retire " RTFM " and start using " RTFS .
" I sure did n't read it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this becomes a normal Summary we'll have to retire "RTFM" and start using "RTFS.
"  I sure didn't read it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361262</id>
	<title>LONG!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267733940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>wow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... i wonder if i should read this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</htmltext>
<tokenext>wow .... i wonder if i should read this ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow .... i wonder if i should read this ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361312</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like Micro$oft needs to implement a "remotely shock this user" feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Micro $ oft needs to implement a " remotely shock this user " feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Micro$oft needs to implement a "remotely shock this user" feature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361402</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1267734540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, on a small business network, IPCop + URL Filter with transparent proxy on &amp; the Ads category checked... That works well for IE &amp; Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , on a small business network , IPCop + URL Filter with transparent proxy on &amp; the Ads category checked... That works well for IE &amp; Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, on a small business network, IPCop + URL Filter with transparent proxy on &amp; the Ads category checked... That works well for IE &amp; Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361448</id>
	<title>Re:TL;DR</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1267734720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>He basically wants someone to tell him about Fiddler.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He basically wants someone to tell him about Fiddler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He basically wants someone to tell him about Fiddler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367244</id>
	<title>Re:First</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1267723920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For someone who calls himself an experienced user and has shown at least some level of technical competence in the past, I don't think Bennett Haselton uses IE and Norton because he thinks they're good. It could be a work computer or a test machine (nowhere does he state whether its his own personal computer or a work computer).</p><p>I think what he's saying makes a good bit of sense (for once). A feature like this would be really useful, especially for the less technically minded users. Combining it with a database of websites (similar to an online antivirus database - maybe Google's complaint registry?) would allow an inquisitive user to look things like this up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For someone who calls himself an experienced user and has shown at least some level of technical competence in the past , I do n't think Bennett Haselton uses IE and Norton because he thinks they 're good .
It could be a work computer or a test machine ( nowhere does he state whether its his own personal computer or a work computer ) .I think what he 's saying makes a good bit of sense ( for once ) .
A feature like this would be really useful , especially for the less technically minded users .
Combining it with a database of websites ( similar to an online antivirus database - maybe Google 's complaint registry ?
) would allow an inquisitive user to look things like this up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For someone who calls himself an experienced user and has shown at least some level of technical competence in the past, I don't think Bennett Haselton uses IE and Norton because he thinks they're good.
It could be a work computer or a test machine (nowhere does he state whether its his own personal computer or a work computer).I think what he's saying makes a good bit of sense (for once).
A feature like this would be really useful, especially for the less technically minded users.
Combining it with a database of websites (similar to an online antivirus database - maybe Google's complaint registry?
) would allow an inquisitive user to look things like this up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362296</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>LBt1st</author>
	<datestamp>1267695780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Joe sixpack shouldn't be using a computer.</p><p>Seriously, were entering an age when game consoles, cell phones and toasters have internet access.<br>Lets give common people common devices and leave computers to those intelligent enough to use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Joe sixpack should n't be using a computer.Seriously , were entering an age when game consoles , cell phones and toasters have internet access.Lets give common people common devices and leave computers to those intelligent enough to use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Joe sixpack shouldn't be using a computer.Seriously, were entering an age when game consoles, cell phones and toasters have internet access.Lets give common people common devices and leave computers to those intelligent enough to use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361864</id>
	<title>RequestPolicy</title>
	<author>avicarmi</author>
	<datestamp>1267693500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.requestpolicy.com/" title="requestpolicy.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.requestpolicy.com/</a> [requestpolicy.com]</p><p>RequestPolicy is an extension for Mozilla browsers that improves the privacy and security of your browsing by giving you control over when cross-site requests are allowed by webpages you visit. It is the first comprehensive client-side protection against CSRF attacks and the first tool to enable the use of modern browsers without cross-site information leakage.</p><p>not just displays, as the original post was suggesting, but also allows to you block (or unblock) cross site requests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.requestpolicy.com/ [ requestpolicy.com ] RequestPolicy is an extension for Mozilla browsers that improves the privacy and security of your browsing by giving you control over when cross-site requests are allowed by webpages you visit .
It is the first comprehensive client-side protection against CSRF attacks and the first tool to enable the use of modern browsers without cross-site information leakage.not just displays , as the original post was suggesting , but also allows to you block ( or unblock ) cross site requests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.requestpolicy.com/ [requestpolicy.com]RequestPolicy is an extension for Mozilla browsers that improves the privacy and security of your browsing by giving you control over when cross-site requests are allowed by webpages you visit.
It is the first comprehensive client-side protection against CSRF attacks and the first tool to enable the use of modern browsers without cross-site information leakage.not just displays, as the original post was suggesting, but also allows to you block (or unblock) cross site requests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362300</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Smauler</author>
	<datestamp>1267695780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Joe sixpack is not going to right click, and send to the website the cut and paste.</p><p>This solution is not a solution.  Those who know about annoying popups have already blocked them.  Those who do not know about preventing annoying popups are unlikely to right click, grab the route, and email it off to the site owner.  It would effect basically nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Joe sixpack is not going to right click , and send to the website the cut and paste.This solution is not a solution .
Those who know about annoying popups have already blocked them .
Those who do not know about preventing annoying popups are unlikely to right click , grab the route , and email it off to the site owner .
It would effect basically nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joe sixpack is not going to right click, and send to the website the cut and paste.This solution is not a solution.
Those who know about annoying popups have already blocked them.
Those who do not know about preventing annoying popups are unlikely to right click, grab the route, and email it off to the site owner.
It would effect basically nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361742</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>ottothecow</author>
	<datestamp>1267736160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And expert users are the only people who can really browse with the GP's combo.  If we stuck everyone on that combo, they would be dead in the water when something breaks.<p>

I skip noscript, only use adblock plus on slower systems (I'd like to let the sites get ad impressions, but my netbook browses so much smoother when the ads are getting blocked) and use flashblock somewhat randomly across systems.  Even with flashblock alone, some sites simply can not be made to function properly without whitelisting it and reloading the page.  I don't know if there are funny overlays or scripts that trigger eachother or what but sometimes the little play button just isn't enough.</p><p>

The average user is not going to go around whitelisting, reloading, and otherwise troubleshooting pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And expert users are the only people who can really browse with the GP 's combo .
If we stuck everyone on that combo , they would be dead in the water when something breaks .
I skip noscript , only use adblock plus on slower systems ( I 'd like to let the sites get ad impressions , but my netbook browses so much smoother when the ads are getting blocked ) and use flashblock somewhat randomly across systems .
Even with flashblock alone , some sites simply can not be made to function properly without whitelisting it and reloading the page .
I do n't know if there are funny overlays or scripts that trigger eachother or what but sometimes the little play button just is n't enough .
The average user is not going to go around whitelisting , reloading , and otherwise troubleshooting pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And expert users are the only people who can really browse with the GP's combo.
If we stuck everyone on that combo, they would be dead in the water when something breaks.
I skip noscript, only use adblock plus on slower systems (I'd like to let the sites get ad impressions, but my netbook browses so much smoother when the ads are getting blocked) and use flashblock somewhat randomly across systems.
Even with flashblock alone, some sites simply can not be made to function properly without whitelisting it and reloading the page.
I don't know if there are funny overlays or scripts that trigger eachother or what but sometimes the little play button just isn't enough.
The average user is not going to go around whitelisting, reloading, and otherwise troubleshooting pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365208</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoy pop-up blocking while you can</title>
	<author>bartwol</author>
	<datestamp>1267708740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You can't block ads on the iPad.</p></div></blockquote><p>That seems okay...to allow pop-ups on an Apple device...I'm sure they'd be done tastefully.
</p><p>...like only one company would be allowed to pitch a given kind of product...and the ads would be wrapped in little black turtlenecks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't block ads on the iPad.That seems okay...to allow pop-ups on an Apple device...I 'm sure they 'd be done tastefully .
...like only one company would be allowed to pitch a given kind of product...and the ads would be wrapped in little black turtlenecks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't block ads on the iPad.That seems okay...to allow pop-ups on an Apple device...I'm sure they'd be done tastefully.
...like only one company would be allowed to pitch a given kind of product...and the ads would be wrapped in little black turtlenecks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361302</id>
	<title>What in the who again?</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1267734120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pop-ups in Internet Explorer?  How quaint.  I've forgotten what browsing in the late '90s was like since I've been using FIrefox for so long.  Haven't seen a pop-up in ages.  Thanks for the blast from the past.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pop-ups in Internet Explorer ?
How quaint .
I 've forgotten what browsing in the late '90s was like since I 've been using FIrefox for so long .
Have n't seen a pop-up in ages .
Thanks for the blast from the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pop-ups in Internet Explorer?
How quaint.
I've forgotten what browsing in the late '90s was like since I've been using FIrefox for so long.
Haven't seen a pop-up in ages.
Thanks for the blast from the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361438</id>
	<title>Re:LONG!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's by Bennett Haselton, so it's safe to say no, don't read it,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's by Bennett Haselton , so it 's safe to say no , do n't read it,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's by Bennett Haselton, so it's safe to say no, don't read it,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31364960</id>
	<title>uhhh....</title>
	<author>kaizokuace</author>
	<datestamp>1267707240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>whats a pop-up? i remember a while back seeing ads on web pages too? Sounds like a relic from the past. Sounds like a job for some anthropologists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>whats a pop-up ?
i remember a while back seeing ads on web pages too ?
Sounds like a relic from the past .
Sounds like a job for some anthropologists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whats a pop-up?
i remember a while back seeing ads on web pages too?
Sounds like a relic from the past.
Sounds like a job for some anthropologists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361722</id>
	<title>Oh, another thing.</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1267736040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get rid of Norton kid.  You aren't doing yourself any favors by using or paying for that crap-fest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get rid of Norton kid .
You are n't doing yourself any favors by using or paying for that crap-fest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get rid of Norton kid.
You aren't doing yourself any favors by using or paying for that crap-fest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361568</id>
	<title>Oh, God, I Hope So!!</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1267735380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If not Katz, then maybe someone who will stand in here in all the meaningfully Katz-like ways.  We desperately need a Katz-figure here now to allow for some steam blowing off.  I will say that, writing an article about pop-ups and IE, he's off to a fabulous start if he wants to pick up Katz's Post-Columbine Banner.</p><p>C'mon!!  Go for it, D00D!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If not Katz , then maybe someone who will stand in here in all the meaningfully Katz-like ways .
We desperately need a Katz-figure here now to allow for some steam blowing off .
I will say that , writing an article about pop-ups and IE , he 's off to a fabulous start if he wants to pick up Katz 's Post-Columbine Banner.C'mon ! !
Go for it , D00D !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If not Katz, then maybe someone who will stand in here in all the meaningfully Katz-like ways.
We desperately need a Katz-figure here now to allow for some steam blowing off.
I will say that, writing an article about pop-ups and IE, he's off to a fabulous start if he wants to pick up Katz's Post-Columbine Banner.C'mon!!
Go for it, D00D!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361354</id>
	<title>Cat and mouse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Generally speaking, bad actors will counter any move you make.  Talking about miscreants who might respond with innocent content for requests from the ad network's IP space is naive; this has been happening for years already.  It is quite common to see a lot of different defenses deployed to protect the bad actors, and accurately tracking them is rarely simple.  It's part of the power and part of the problem that is HTML.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally speaking , bad actors will counter any move you make .
Talking about miscreants who might respond with innocent content for requests from the ad network 's IP space is naive ; this has been happening for years already .
It is quite common to see a lot of different defenses deployed to protect the bad actors , and accurately tracking them is rarely simple .
It 's part of the power and part of the problem that is HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally speaking, bad actors will counter any move you make.
Talking about miscreants who might respond with innocent content for requests from the ad network's IP space is naive; this has been happening for years already.
It is quite common to see a lot of different defenses deployed to protect the bad actors, and accurately tracking them is rarely simple.
It's part of the power and part of the problem that is HTML.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361798</id>
	<title>Enjoy pop-up blocking while you can</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1267693200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's convenient that you can block ads in web browsers.  That may be on the way out.
</p><p>
You can't block ads on the iPad. One of the <a href="http://www.clickz.com/3636311" title="clickz.com">"advantages" being touted to advertisers</a> [clickz.com] for the closed ecosystems of the various "ereaders" and "pads" is that they can have unblockable, unskippable ads. There hasn't been much about this in the popular press yet, but it's being of great interest in the advertising community, where more "control over the user experience", and less control by the user, is desired.
</p><p>
You can already see a trend in this direction, with Flash-based video players which insert unskippable ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's convenient that you can block ads in web browsers .
That may be on the way out .
You ca n't block ads on the iPad .
One of the " advantages " being touted to advertisers [ clickz.com ] for the closed ecosystems of the various " ereaders " and " pads " is that they can have unblockable , unskippable ads .
There has n't been much about this in the popular press yet , but it 's being of great interest in the advertising community , where more " control over the user experience " , and less control by the user , is desired .
You can already see a trend in this direction , with Flash-based video players which insert unskippable ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's convenient that you can block ads in web browsers.
That may be on the way out.
You can't block ads on the iPad.
One of the "advantages" being touted to advertisers [clickz.com] for the closed ecosystems of the various "ereaders" and "pads" is that they can have unblockable, unskippable ads.
There hasn't been much about this in the popular press yet, but it's being of great interest in the advertising community, where more "control over the user experience", and less control by the user, is desired.
You can already see a trend in this direction, with Flash-based video players which insert unskippable ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361358</id>
	<title>ads not adds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton contributes the following piece on trying to get some measure of satisfaction in the struggle against pop-up <b>adds,</b> writing</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"The most annoying thing about some pop-up <b>ads</b></p> </div></div><p>Jeez, how hard is this? All the editor had to do was ^c^v what the contributor wrote. (Yes, I know I'm misspelling "Jesus"; I'm trying to avoid going to hell.  Fuck you.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton contributes the following piece on trying to get some measure of satisfaction in the struggle against pop-up adds , writing " The most annoying thing about some pop-up ads Jeez , how hard is this ?
All the editor had to do was ^ c ^ v what the contributor wrote .
( Yes , I know I 'm misspelling " Jesus " ; I 'm trying to avoid going to hell .
Fuck you .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton contributes the following piece on trying to get some measure of satisfaction in the struggle against pop-up adds, writing"The most annoying thing about some pop-up ads Jeez, how hard is this?
All the editor had to do was ^c^v what the contributor wrote.
(Yes, I know I'm misspelling "Jesus"; I'm trying to avoid going to hell.
Fuck you.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365476</id>
	<title>Browser should still protect you</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1267710480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more content-controlled features in your browser, the easier it is for malicious web pages to abuse them.  But that's no excuse for the browser to allow them to do so untraceably - it should still show you where the window came from, and give you tools to block that, regardless of what else it's doing.  (Of course, that doesn't stop the whack-a-mole moving target problem, but it should at least tell you what mole to whack, and let you limit popup-like things to known good actors anyway.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more content-controlled features in your browser , the easier it is for malicious web pages to abuse them .
But that 's no excuse for the browser to allow them to do so untraceably - it should still show you where the window came from , and give you tools to block that , regardless of what else it 's doing .
( Of course , that does n't stop the whack-a-mole moving target problem , but it should at least tell you what mole to whack , and let you limit popup-like things to known good actors anyway .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more content-controlled features in your browser, the easier it is for malicious web pages to abuse them.
But that's no excuse for the browser to allow them to do so untraceably - it should still show you where the window came from, and give you tools to block that, regardless of what else it's doing.
(Of course, that doesn't stop the whack-a-mole moving target problem, but it should at least tell you what mole to whack, and let you limit popup-like things to known good actors anyway.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362888</id>
	<title>Opera Browser with Disable Popups option selected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267698300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't seen a pop-up ad in years of daily heavy surfing with the above configuration.  What's all the fuss about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen a pop-up ad in years of daily heavy surfing with the above configuration .
What 's all the fuss about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen a pop-up ad in years of daily heavy surfing with the above configuration.
What's all the fuss about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361400</id>
	<title>Re:Ad-Block Perhaps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally correct. Firefox + ad-block (+ Ubuntu) is a perfect solution without any disadvantages. if you are on a website where you actually want to see the pop-up, just click the pop-up warning toolbar, and the pop-up is shown then. I think Timothy's pain is self-inflicted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally correct .
Firefox + ad-block ( + Ubuntu ) is a perfect solution without any disadvantages .
if you are on a website where you actually want to see the pop-up , just click the pop-up warning toolbar , and the pop-up is shown then .
I think Timothy 's pain is self-inflicted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally correct.
Firefox + ad-block (+ Ubuntu) is a perfect solution without any disadvantages.
if you are on a website where you actually want to see the pop-up, just click the pop-up warning toolbar, and the pop-up is shown then.
I think Timothy's pain is self-inflicted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365756</id>
	<title>Popup on efukt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267712520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got FF with Adblock Plus, NoScript.<br>I'm pretty strict with my settings, only whitelisting when necessary (and then often only temporarily), but I always get a popup from  livejasmin.com when I click to play a video there.</p><p>That is the only site I know which manages to get a Popup or other unwanted stuff through to me.</p><p>Since the popup appears when I click to play, I guess it's Flash related.<br>I wrote a little Greasemonkey script that closes the window immediately, but that's just a hack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got FF with Adblock Plus , NoScript.I 'm pretty strict with my settings , only whitelisting when necessary ( and then often only temporarily ) , but I always get a popup from livejasmin.com when I click to play a video there.That is the only site I know which manages to get a Popup or other unwanted stuff through to me.Since the popup appears when I click to play , I guess it 's Flash related.I wrote a little Greasemonkey script that closes the window immediately , but that 's just a hack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got FF with Adblock Plus, NoScript.I'm pretty strict with my settings, only whitelisting when necessary (and then often only temporarily), but I always get a popup from  livejasmin.com when I click to play a video there.That is the only site I know which manages to get a Popup or other unwanted stuff through to me.Since the popup appears when I click to play, I guess it's Flash related.I wrote a little Greasemonkey script that closes the window immediately, but that's just a hack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363030</id>
	<title>Bigger Issue</title>
	<author>Zaphod The 42nd</author>
	<datestamp>1267698780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen to alot you said. Yeah, people are going on and on about adblock (which I use, and is great) but I still think you made some good points regardless. As the internet is growing up, we need more and more simple ways for the average browser to educate himself (where did this ad come from?) and be able to send that information to the host. Maybe today its feasible for the host to try to manage himself, but the internet is only going to get bigger and bigger.
<br> <br>
I think this shows a more fundamental problem with browsers, (and even Operating System environments). I feel like we've been basing too much on just like, the first IE design of what a browser should look like.<br>
<br>
I remember when tabs first came about, it was so revolutionary! It COMPLETELY changed how we browse the internet, and now every browser and their mom has tabbed browsing built in. I'd like to see more things like this.<br>
For instance, if I've got open 15 tabs (on 3 different windows, between 2 different browsers, chrome and firefox), that should be completely managable. But then I get some pop-up that starts making LOUD noise (YOU WON AN IPOD!) and it takes me 10 minutes to go through all the tabs and figure out which page I need to block. I think there should be a built in browser equalizer. I should be able to mute and change the volume of my tabs at will; why not? Sound is becoming just as big a part of the internet as text. Not being able to change font sizes per page would be inexcusable, so why can't I change volumes?<br>
Getting information about and control over ads is just another area where I feel browsers have alot of room to grow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen to alot you said .
Yeah , people are going on and on about adblock ( which I use , and is great ) but I still think you made some good points regardless .
As the internet is growing up , we need more and more simple ways for the average browser to educate himself ( where did this ad come from ?
) and be able to send that information to the host .
Maybe today its feasible for the host to try to manage himself , but the internet is only going to get bigger and bigger .
I think this shows a more fundamental problem with browsers , ( and even Operating System environments ) .
I feel like we 've been basing too much on just like , the first IE design of what a browser should look like .
I remember when tabs first came about , it was so revolutionary !
It COMPLETELY changed how we browse the internet , and now every browser and their mom has tabbed browsing built in .
I 'd like to see more things like this .
For instance , if I 've got open 15 tabs ( on 3 different windows , between 2 different browsers , chrome and firefox ) , that should be completely managable .
But then I get some pop-up that starts making LOUD noise ( YOU WON AN IPOD !
) and it takes me 10 minutes to go through all the tabs and figure out which page I need to block .
I think there should be a built in browser equalizer .
I should be able to mute and change the volume of my tabs at will ; why not ?
Sound is becoming just as big a part of the internet as text .
Not being able to change font sizes per page would be inexcusable , so why ca n't I change volumes ?
Getting information about and control over ads is just another area where I feel browsers have alot of room to grow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen to alot you said.
Yeah, people are going on and on about adblock (which I use, and is great) but I still think you made some good points regardless.
As the internet is growing up, we need more and more simple ways for the average browser to educate himself (where did this ad come from?
) and be able to send that information to the host.
Maybe today its feasible for the host to try to manage himself, but the internet is only going to get bigger and bigger.
I think this shows a more fundamental problem with browsers, (and even Operating System environments).
I feel like we've been basing too much on just like, the first IE design of what a browser should look like.
I remember when tabs first came about, it was so revolutionary!
It COMPLETELY changed how we browse the internet, and now every browser and their mom has tabbed browsing built in.
I'd like to see more things like this.
For instance, if I've got open 15 tabs (on 3 different windows, between 2 different browsers, chrome and firefox), that should be completely managable.
But then I get some pop-up that starts making LOUD noise (YOU WON AN IPOD!
) and it takes me 10 minutes to go through all the tabs and figure out which page I need to block.
I think there should be a built in browser equalizer.
I should be able to mute and change the volume of my tabs at will; why not?
Sound is becoming just as big a part of the internet as text.
Not being able to change font sizes per page would be inexcusable, so why can't I change volumes?
Getting information about and control over ads is just another area where I feel browsers have alot of room to grow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361862</id>
	<title>What magic does Symantec have?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1267693500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm glad that Norton blocks the malware attacks, since even though I always have all the latest security patches installed for Internet Explorer, it's always possible that an attacker could be using an exploit that hasn't been patched yet.</p></div></blockquote><p>Does this make sense to anyone who's really thought this through?</p><p>What magic does Symantec use that blocks unknown exploits?  Or are you saying you update Norton AV hourly, and Internet Explorer only bi-annually?</p><blockquote><div><p>I don't really care about blocking the "scareware" ads, because I'm not going to fall for an ad that claims to be scanning my PC for viruses, but most Norton customers probably appreciate blocking those ads as well.</p></div></blockquote><p>Per the above, I expect, instead, that Norton is protecting it's marks from OTHER scareware, much as a worm that uninstalls other worms, to ensure it has sole and exclusive access to the resources of the host...  I mean, hey, if you get fooled into buying some other program that removed non-existent infections, you don't have as much money now, and might opt to make up the difference by not paying for Norton in the future.  After all, the new scareware found one more nonexistent virus than the old Norton scareware could...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad that Norton blocks the malware attacks , since even though I always have all the latest security patches installed for Internet Explorer , it 's always possible that an attacker could be using an exploit that has n't been patched yet.Does this make sense to anyone who 's really thought this through ? What magic does Symantec use that blocks unknown exploits ?
Or are you saying you update Norton AV hourly , and Internet Explorer only bi-annually ? I do n't really care about blocking the " scareware " ads , because I 'm not going to fall for an ad that claims to be scanning my PC for viruses , but most Norton customers probably appreciate blocking those ads as well.Per the above , I expect , instead , that Norton is protecting it 's marks from OTHER scareware , much as a worm that uninstalls other worms , to ensure it has sole and exclusive access to the resources of the host... I mean , hey , if you get fooled into buying some other program that removed non-existent infections , you do n't have as much money now , and might opt to make up the difference by not paying for Norton in the future .
After all , the new scareware found one more nonexistent virus than the old Norton scareware could.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad that Norton blocks the malware attacks, since even though I always have all the latest security patches installed for Internet Explorer, it's always possible that an attacker could be using an exploit that hasn't been patched yet.Does this make sense to anyone who's really thought this through?What magic does Symantec use that blocks unknown exploits?
Or are you saying you update Norton AV hourly, and Internet Explorer only bi-annually?I don't really care about blocking the "scareware" ads, because I'm not going to fall for an ad that claims to be scanning my PC for viruses, but most Norton customers probably appreciate blocking those ads as well.Per the above, I expect, instead, that Norton is protecting it's marks from OTHER scareware, much as a worm that uninstalls other worms, to ensure it has sole and exclusive access to the resources of the host...  I mean, hey, if you get fooled into buying some other program that removed non-existent infections, you don't have as much money now, and might opt to make up the difference by not paying for Norton in the future.
After all, the new scareware found one more nonexistent virus than the old Norton scareware could...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31364458</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267704900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was running most of the configuration you suggest, but was still infected a few months back. The way that the infection entered was actually by clicking the "search" button in Azureus/VUZE. Rather than parsing the data and sending it back as a list, it used an in-client web browser and just went to the site; which then served me an infected ad with (if memory serves correctly) a 'pdif exploit.' <br>
&nbsp; <br>Morals of the story: <br>1: lazy programming causes all manner of unforseen consequences. <br>2: Added 'functionality' isn't necessarily a good thing. <br>3: Noscript, Adblock, and firefox won't close all routes of infection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was running most of the configuration you suggest , but was still infected a few months back .
The way that the infection entered was actually by clicking the " search " button in Azureus/VUZE .
Rather than parsing the data and sending it back as a list , it used an in-client web browser and just went to the site ; which then served me an infected ad with ( if memory serves correctly ) a 'pdif exploit .
'   Morals of the story : 1 : lazy programming causes all manner of unforseen consequences .
2 : Added 'functionality ' is n't necessarily a good thing .
3 : Noscript , Adblock , and firefox wo n't close all routes of infection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was running most of the configuration you suggest, but was still infected a few months back.
The way that the infection entered was actually by clicking the "search" button in Azureus/VUZE.
Rather than parsing the data and sending it back as a list, it used an in-client web browser and just went to the site; which then served me an infected ad with (if memory serves correctly) a 'pdif exploit.
' 
  Morals of the story: 1: lazy programming causes all manner of unforseen consequences.
2: Added 'functionality' isn't necessarily a good thing.
3: Noscript, Adblock, and firefox won't close all routes of infection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361688</id>
	<title>Re:Ad-Block Perhaps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267735920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we've found Rolland Piquepaille's successor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we 've found Rolland Piquepaille 's successor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we've found Rolland Piquepaille's successor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362206</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>ukemike</author>
	<datestamp>1267695300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I think Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocker is over kill.  I use Firefox with NoScript. I don't get popups, or the most annoying ads, and flash does not work unless the script is allowed.  <br> <br>

Many people wouldn't want to deal with enabling particular scripts to view video or other bits of websites on a regular basis.  I don't mind.  Truth is when I saw this story I thought, "People still get popups?!?"  Then I remembered a recent foray online on another PC with IE and it was nothing but popups and popunders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocker is over kill .
I use Firefox with NoScript .
I do n't get popups , or the most annoying ads , and flash does not work unless the script is allowed .
Many people would n't want to deal with enabling particular scripts to view video or other bits of websites on a regular basis .
I do n't mind .
Truth is when I saw this story I thought , " People still get popups ? ! ?
" Then I remembered a recent foray online on another PC with IE and it was nothing but popups and popunders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocker is over kill.
I use Firefox with NoScript.
I don't get popups, or the most annoying ads, and flash does not work unless the script is allowed.
Many people wouldn't want to deal with enabling particular scripts to view video or other bits of websites on a regular basis.
I don't mind.
Truth is when I saw this story I thought, "People still get popups?!?
"  Then I remembered a recent foray online on another PC with IE and it was nothing but popups and popunders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363296</id>
	<title>So you're saying...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1267699680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Katz went to the dogs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Katz went to the dogs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Katz went to the dogs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362332</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Deisatru</author>
	<datestamp>1267696020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>if someone cant be bothered to install a plug in on their browser, they are not going to bother to send all this information to an ad network that will probably ignore them anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if someone cant be bothered to install a plug in on their browser , they are not going to bother to send all this information to an ad network that will probably ignore them anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if someone cant be bothered to install a plug in on their browser, they are not going to bother to send all this information to an ad network that will probably ignore them anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361366</id>
	<title>Re:Jon Katz, is that you?</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1267734360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He got into dogs and started writing books about them instead. Unfortunately, knowledgeable people in the "dog community" or whatever you call it have criticised him for killing his dogs at the first signs of illness, and for generally being a bad trainer. It's a familiar pattern - gain passing familiarity with something, pretend to be some deeply insightful authority and write about it, then retreat when things go pear-shaped (ie the Commodore 64 in Afghanistan, remember that?)</p><p>The anti-Katz flaming was hilarious though. That was also the era of page-widening, Slashdot editor fan fiction, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He got into dogs and started writing books about them instead .
Unfortunately , knowledgeable people in the " dog community " or whatever you call it have criticised him for killing his dogs at the first signs of illness , and for generally being a bad trainer .
It 's a familiar pattern - gain passing familiarity with something , pretend to be some deeply insightful authority and write about it , then retreat when things go pear-shaped ( ie the Commodore 64 in Afghanistan , remember that ?
) The anti-Katz flaming was hilarious though .
That was also the era of page-widening , Slashdot editor fan fiction , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He got into dogs and started writing books about them instead.
Unfortunately, knowledgeable people in the "dog community" or whatever you call it have criticised him for killing his dogs at the first signs of illness, and for generally being a bad trainer.
It's a familiar pattern - gain passing familiarity with something, pretend to be some deeply insightful authority and write about it, then retreat when things go pear-shaped (ie the Commodore 64 in Afghanistan, remember that?
)The anti-Katz flaming was hilarious though.
That was also the era of page-widening, Slashdot editor fan fiction, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363964</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267702860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you can also add some hosts files to that list as well. But just by using two of those three you listed, popups are pretty damn rare.</p><p>I guess the only time I see them now is when using a computer at a place where I don't have control of everything, which isn't too often.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you can also add some hosts files to that list as well .
But just by using two of those three you listed , popups are pretty damn rare.I guess the only time I see them now is when using a computer at a place where I do n't have control of everything , which is n't too often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you can also add some hosts files to that list as well.
But just by using two of those three you listed, popups are pretty damn rare.I guess the only time I see them now is when using a computer at a place where I don't have control of everything, which isn't too often.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361796</id>
	<title>No one seems to get it except the article writer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267693200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading the first 100 or so replies makes me sick.  Its just like spam. Out of sight, out of mind attitude.  When you finally get someone who wants to stand up and try and CORRECT the problem rather than just fucking masking it, they get blasted into oblivion.  Disgusting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading the first 100 or so replies makes me sick .
Its just like spam .
Out of sight , out of mind attitude .
When you finally get someone who wants to stand up and try and CORRECT the problem rather than just fucking masking it , they get blasted into oblivion .
Disgusting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading the first 100 or so replies makes me sick.
Its just like spam.
Out of sight, out of mind attitude.
When you finally get someone who wants to stand up and try and CORRECT the problem rather than just fucking masking it, they get blasted into oblivion.
Disgusting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361342</id>
	<title>File a feature request with Mozilla</title>
	<author>Qualin74</author>
	<datestamp>1267734240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>File a feature request with the Mozilla Team. I'm sure they'd be happy to include this feature into their browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>File a feature request with the Mozilla Team .
I 'm sure they 'd be happy to include this feature into their browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>File a feature request with the Mozilla Team.
I'm sure they'd be happy to include this feature into their browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362136</id>
	<title>Re:Ad-Block Perhaps?</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1267694820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I.E. 8 is the industry standard!<br>Or am I thinking of I.E. 6?

Heh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I.E .
8 is the industry standard ! Or am I thinking of I.E .
6 ? Heh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I.E.
8 is the industry standard!Or am I thinking of I.E.
6?

Heh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31368990</id>
	<title>Easy algorithm</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1267787220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assume all online advertising is deceptive and ignore it. If something is worth buying, someone you know will mention it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assume all online advertising is deceptive and ignore it .
If something is worth buying , someone you know will mention it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assume all online advertising is deceptive and ignore it.
If something is worth buying, someone you know will mention it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362144</id>
	<title>Why should the advertisers help?</title>
	<author>Sir Realist</author>
	<datestamp>1267694880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which would imply that the advertisers have a motivation to help you remove the offending ads.  They don't.  They get paid for them just as much as for anything else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which would imply that the advertisers have a motivation to help you remove the offending ads .
They do n't .
They get paid for them just as much as for anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which would imply that the advertisers have a motivation to help you remove the offending ads.
They don't.
They get paid for them just as much as for anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361332</id>
	<title>pop-up ads?</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1267734240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those are one of the annoyances blocked by AdBlock on FireFox, right?  I can't recall seeing one for awhile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are one of the annoyances blocked by AdBlock on FireFox , right ?
I ca n't recall seeing one for awhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are one of the annoyances blocked by AdBlock on FireFox, right?
I can't recall seeing one for awhile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361594</id>
	<title>Re:Ad-Block Perhaps?</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1267735500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shoot: Safari, IE, and FF block nearly all the ads I encounter in their default configurations. Kinda a non-issue these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shoot : Safari , IE , and FF block nearly all the ads I encounter in their default configurations .
Kinda a non-issue these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shoot: Safari, IE, and FF block nearly all the ads I encounter in their default configurations.
Kinda a non-issue these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361272</id>
	<title>Jon Katz, is that you?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1267734000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever happened to that guy? He posted a bunch of worthless articles, wrote (and promoted) a book here on slashdot, got laughed out of the community and nobody's ever heard from him since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to that guy ?
He posted a bunch of worthless articles , wrote ( and promoted ) a book here on slashdot , got laughed out of the community and nobody 's ever heard from him since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to that guy?
He posted a bunch of worthless articles, wrote (and promoted) a book here on slashdot, got laughed out of the community and nobody's ever heard from him since.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363992</id>
	<title>Yes please</title>
	<author>Big\_Mamma</author>
	<datestamp>1267702980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to see such a feature, it would make the life of everyone hosting a advertising revenue dependent site a lot easier. The Slashdot standard answer of Noscript/Adblock/Hostfile doesn't solve anything - there will always be users who don't mind advertisement as much as you do, and it's our job to protect them from harm.<br> <br>

Yes, I run a site that have ad revenue. No, I don't deal directly with the scareware crowd, I sell my space to Google, Right Media, AOL etc. But if they make a mistake and a user gets served a bad ad, I'd love to know from which network it came, so I can demand they take down that ad ASAP and if this is repeated, I will take my business somewhere else. <br> <br>

But browsers just lack that information at the moment, so to report an ad, we ask our users to follow the procedure below:</p><ul>
<li>On IE, press F12 to access the debugger, on Firefox, install Firebug and press F12. In Chrome, use Ctrl-Shift-I.</li>
<li>In Chrome: select the "html" element and ctrl-c ctrl-v the data into a text file, save it.</li>
<li>In IE: Ctrl-S inside the developer tools saves a version I can use. Don't use save from the IE screen.</li>
<li>In Firebug: Select the html tab, select the html node, right click and select copy innerHtml. Paste it into a text file and save.</li>
<li>Email me the result</li>
</ul><p>It will contain a lot of useless info, but somewhere in between, there's the magical &lt;script&gt; tag plus the generated (=bad) content for verification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see such a feature , it would make the life of everyone hosting a advertising revenue dependent site a lot easier .
The Slashdot standard answer of Noscript/Adblock/Hostfile does n't solve anything - there will always be users who do n't mind advertisement as much as you do , and it 's our job to protect them from harm .
Yes , I run a site that have ad revenue .
No , I do n't deal directly with the scareware crowd , I sell my space to Google , Right Media , AOL etc .
But if they make a mistake and a user gets served a bad ad , I 'd love to know from which network it came , so I can demand they take down that ad ASAP and if this is repeated , I will take my business somewhere else .
But browsers just lack that information at the moment , so to report an ad , we ask our users to follow the procedure below : On IE , press F12 to access the debugger , on Firefox , install Firebug and press F12 .
In Chrome , use Ctrl-Shift-I .
In Chrome : select the " html " element and ctrl-c ctrl-v the data into a text file , save it .
In IE : Ctrl-S inside the developer tools saves a version I can use .
Do n't use save from the IE screen .
In Firebug : Select the html tab , select the html node , right click and select copy innerHtml .
Paste it into a text file and save .
Email me the result It will contain a lot of useless info , but somewhere in between , there 's the magical tag plus the generated ( = bad ) content for verification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to see such a feature, it would make the life of everyone hosting a advertising revenue dependent site a lot easier.
The Slashdot standard answer of Noscript/Adblock/Hostfile doesn't solve anything - there will always be users who don't mind advertisement as much as you do, and it's our job to protect them from harm.
Yes, I run a site that have ad revenue.
No, I don't deal directly with the scareware crowd, I sell my space to Google, Right Media, AOL etc.
But if they make a mistake and a user gets served a bad ad, I'd love to know from which network it came, so I can demand they take down that ad ASAP and if this is repeated, I will take my business somewhere else.
But browsers just lack that information at the moment, so to report an ad, we ask our users to follow the procedure below:
On IE, press F12 to access the debugger, on Firefox, install Firebug and press F12.
In Chrome, use Ctrl-Shift-I.
In Chrome: select the "html" element and ctrl-c ctrl-v the data into a text file, save it.
In IE: Ctrl-S inside the developer tools saves a version I can use.
Don't use save from the IE screen.
In Firebug: Select the html tab, select the html node, right click and select copy innerHtml.
Paste it into a text file and save.
Email me the result
It will contain a lot of useless info, but somewhere in between, there's the magical  tag plus the generated (=bad) content for verification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361444</id>
	<title>A change</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1267734720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've noticed recently that many websites I visit are starting to use those huge overlay ads OR, even worse, those fuckers that appear right over a link just as you are about to click on it.</p><p>I WILL NOT buy products advertised in this fasion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noticed recently that many websites I visit are starting to use those huge overlay ads OR , even worse , those fuckers that appear right over a link just as you are about to click on it.I WILL NOT buy products advertised in this fasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noticed recently that many websites I visit are starting to use those huge overlay ads OR, even worse, those fuckers that appear right over a link just as you are about to click on it.I WILL NOT buy products advertised in this fasion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361584</id>
	<title>Chrome's solution</title>
	<author>crow</author>
	<datestamp>1267735380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't seen a pop-up ad in years, but my understanding is that Google's Chrome browser handles this by keeping the pop-up inside the tab that created it.  Not the full history of the page with redirects as was overly-verbosely proposed, but certainly a step in the right direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen a pop-up ad in years , but my understanding is that Google 's Chrome browser handles this by keeping the pop-up inside the tab that created it .
Not the full history of the page with redirects as was overly-verbosely proposed , but certainly a step in the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen a pop-up ad in years, but my understanding is that Google's Chrome browser handles this by keeping the pop-up inside the tab that created it.
Not the full history of the page with redirects as was overly-verbosely proposed, but certainly a step in the right direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361412</id>
	<title>Re:Ad-Block Perhaps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean did you really need to write this long-winded meaningless rant? just download firefox and ad-block pro.</p></div><p>Correct, sir! I don't even remember what ads or pop-ups look like anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean did you really need to write this long-winded meaningless rant ?
just download firefox and ad-block pro.Correct , sir !
I do n't even remember what ads or pop-ups look like anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean did you really need to write this long-winded meaningless rant?
just download firefox and ad-block pro.Correct, sir!
I don't even remember what ads or pop-ups look like anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362924</id>
	<title>Re:Jeezus H. Christ INAL</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1267698420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But that isn't the correct way to submit a copyright.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But that is n't the correct way to submit a copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that isn't the correct way to submit a copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365744</id>
	<title>I wish Adblock would</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267712400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>block articles like this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>block articles like this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>block articles like this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361550</id>
	<title>Right details</title>
	<author>KevMar</author>
	<datestamp>1267735320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have helped a few sites track down and remove scareware.  give them as many details as you can.</p><p>My host name and IP from <a href="http://www.displaymyhostname.com/" title="displaymyhostname.com">http://www.displaymyhostname.com/</a> [displaymyhostname.com]<br>The time I was on the page.  What page you were on.</p><p>One thing I do is leave the site alone for a day so when I report it, I can tell them it was the last visit to the site.  A detail like that helps when looking at logs.  The hostname gives them where your located so if the add network uses locations to send adds, this will help.</p><p>part of the problem is that these sites will take real adds for real services and have them link to the real site.  This helps them pass, then they push out a redirect script later or built in with a trigger to cause the redirection.</p><p>Its not often they can or take the time to track it down.  But it sure feels good when they tell you they tracked it down because of your help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have helped a few sites track down and remove scareware .
give them as many details as you can.My host name and IP from http : //www.displaymyhostname.com/ [ displaymyhostname.com ] The time I was on the page .
What page you were on.One thing I do is leave the site alone for a day so when I report it , I can tell them it was the last visit to the site .
A detail like that helps when looking at logs .
The hostname gives them where your located so if the add network uses locations to send adds , this will help.part of the problem is that these sites will take real adds for real services and have them link to the real site .
This helps them pass , then they push out a redirect script later or built in with a trigger to cause the redirection.Its not often they can or take the time to track it down .
But it sure feels good when they tell you they tracked it down because of your help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have helped a few sites track down and remove scareware.
give them as many details as you can.My host name and IP from http://www.displaymyhostname.com/ [displaymyhostname.com]The time I was on the page.
What page you were on.One thing I do is leave the site alone for a day so when I report it, I can tell them it was the last visit to the site.
A detail like that helps when looking at logs.
The hostname gives them where your located so if the add network uses locations to send adds, this will help.part of the problem is that these sites will take real adds for real services and have them link to the real site.
This helps them pass, then they push out a redirect script later or built in with a trigger to cause the redirection.Its not often they can or take the time to track it down.
But it sure feels good when they tell you they tracked it down because of your help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362378</id>
	<title>Re:Out Come the Wolves</title>
	<author>Deisatru</author>
	<datestamp>1267696320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> delivering to a pack of highly caffenated, know-it-all, technology sector employed nerds)</p></div><p>you are employed? man where can I get a  job?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>delivering to a pack of highly caffenated , know-it-all , technology sector employed nerds ) you are employed ?
man where can I get a job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> delivering to a pack of highly caffenated, know-it-all, technology sector employed nerds)you are employed?
man where can I get a  job?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361804</id>
	<title>Re:Norton Anti-virus</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1267693260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>he has a computer powerful enough to get pop-up ads while running Norton Anti-Virus?</p></div><p>No, he's got a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer" title="wikipedia.org"> <strong>super</strong>computer</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>he has a computer powerful enough to get pop-up ads while running Norton Anti-Virus ? No , he 's got a supercomputer [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he has a computer powerful enough to get pop-up ads while running Norton Anti-Virus?No, he's got a  supercomputer [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361678</id>
	<title>Do It Yourself</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267735860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well Bennett, it's not something I would be interested in but, sure, it seems like it's a decent idea. However, I do wonder why you think it should be wrapped in 3rd party anti-virus software like Norton when it seems like it would be easier to just wrap it in the browser itself. In fact, you could write a little script/program that interfaces with the browser and mods it to do what you want. In fact, you could call this program an, "add-on," as it would add on functionality to the browser. Maybe you could even register it with the owners of the browser itself to get it approved so that users know its trust worthy....Do you see what I am getting at here?
<br> <br>
It seems like you have the technical chops regarding how the internet routes traffic to design a piece of software like this. So why not write a Firefox or Chrome (or even both) add on for the browsers that do just what you are asking for? I understand its a good idea and, I suppose, maybe you want some input regarding the best way to implement this function. However, as per usual Bennet, your long winded rants/ideas that you post to slashdot just come off as a male peacock flashing his tail feathers amongst other male peacocks. That is to say, it seems like you're just whoring for attention saying, "Look at me, look at me, look how clever I can be!"
<br> <br>
So stop typing about it and demonstrate it. Crack out the old Camel book (or whatever O'reilly pet you prefer) and get to coding. Otherwise, please spare your fellow 'dotters the long winded theatrics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Bennett , it 's not something I would be interested in but , sure , it seems like it 's a decent idea .
However , I do wonder why you think it should be wrapped in 3rd party anti-virus software like Norton when it seems like it would be easier to just wrap it in the browser itself .
In fact , you could write a little script/program that interfaces with the browser and mods it to do what you want .
In fact , you could call this program an , " add-on , " as it would add on functionality to the browser .
Maybe you could even register it with the owners of the browser itself to get it approved so that users know its trust worthy....Do you see what I am getting at here ?
It seems like you have the technical chops regarding how the internet routes traffic to design a piece of software like this .
So why not write a Firefox or Chrome ( or even both ) add on for the browsers that do just what you are asking for ?
I understand its a good idea and , I suppose , maybe you want some input regarding the best way to implement this function .
However , as per usual Bennet , your long winded rants/ideas that you post to slashdot just come off as a male peacock flashing his tail feathers amongst other male peacocks .
That is to say , it seems like you 're just whoring for attention saying , " Look at me , look at me , look how clever I can be !
" So stop typing about it and demonstrate it .
Crack out the old Camel book ( or whatever O'reilly pet you prefer ) and get to coding .
Otherwise , please spare your fellow 'dotters the long winded theatrics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Bennett, it's not something I would be interested in but, sure, it seems like it's a decent idea.
However, I do wonder why you think it should be wrapped in 3rd party anti-virus software like Norton when it seems like it would be easier to just wrap it in the browser itself.
In fact, you could write a little script/program that interfaces with the browser and mods it to do what you want.
In fact, you could call this program an, "add-on," as it would add on functionality to the browser.
Maybe you could even register it with the owners of the browser itself to get it approved so that users know its trust worthy....Do you see what I am getting at here?
It seems like you have the technical chops regarding how the internet routes traffic to design a piece of software like this.
So why not write a Firefox or Chrome (or even both) add on for the browsers that do just what you are asking for?
I understand its a good idea and, I suppose, maybe you want some input regarding the best way to implement this function.
However, as per usual Bennet, your long winded rants/ideas that you post to slashdot just come off as a male peacock flashing his tail feathers amongst other male peacocks.
That is to say, it seems like you're just whoring for attention saying, "Look at me, look at me, look how clever I can be!
"
 
So stop typing about it and demonstrate it.
Crack out the old Camel book (or whatever O'reilly pet you prefer) and get to coding.
Otherwise, please spare your fellow 'dotters the long winded theatrics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361686</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1267735920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are still ads, let alone pop-up on the Internet?  I had no idea seeing as I use a real web browser that puts me in control of my net surfing experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still ads , let alone pop-up on the Internet ?
I had no idea seeing as I use a real web browser that puts me in control of my net surfing experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still ads, let alone pop-up on the Internet?
I had no idea seeing as I use a real web browser that puts me in control of my net surfing experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361790</id>
	<title>Mod parent Informative: +5</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1267693200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. We need to have a way to protest, not just avoid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
We need to have a way to protest , not just avoid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
We need to have a way to protest, not just avoid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361618</id>
	<title>What's a Pop-Up Ad?</title>
	<author>Wingsy</author>
	<datestamp>1267735620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had almost forgotten what a pop-up ad was. Like many of you, I have my own hosts file and I haven't even seen a pop-up in I-don't-know-when. Why doesn't the OP use one also? (No, I didn't read all TFA. Too many words.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had almost forgotten what a pop-up ad was .
Like many of you , I have my own hosts file and I have n't even seen a pop-up in I-do n't-know-when .
Why does n't the OP use one also ?
( No , I did n't read all TFA .
Too many words .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had almost forgotten what a pop-up ad was.
Like many of you, I have my own hosts file and I haven't even seen a pop-up in I-don't-know-when.
Why doesn't the OP use one also?
(No, I didn't read all TFA.
Too many words.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31369254</id>
	<title>Re:LONG!!!</title>
	<author>Bat Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1267790460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He lost me as soon as i saw the  Norton A/Virus . Sorry but Bennett Haselton  now has no credibility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He lost me as soon as i saw the Norton A/Virus .
Sorry but Bennett Haselton now has no credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He lost me as soon as i saw the  Norton A/Virus .
Sorry but Bennett Haselton  now has no credibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361654</id>
	<title>Brilliant!</title>
	<author>d34dluk3</author>
	<datestamp>1267735800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's combat annoying pop-ups that require the user to stop what they are doing with...complaints for the user to fill out, thus stopping what they are doing! Wait, what?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's combat annoying pop-ups that require the user to stop what they are doing with...complaints for the user to fill out , thus stopping what they are doing !
Wait , what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's combat annoying pop-ups that require the user to stop what they are doing with...complaints for the user to fill out, thus stopping what they are doing!
Wait, what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363048</id>
	<title>Re:A change</title>
	<author>MadCow42</author>
	<datestamp>1267698900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;I WILL NOT buy products advertised in this fasion.</p><p>ABSOLUTELY.  And let the company whose product is advertised know that's the reason.</p><p>(on a side note - Slashdot has a feature to allow users to disable advertising if they have high enough Karma or something, and I haven't enabled that yet... but I'm coming close because of a few recent annoying ads and a couple popups.  I'll support the site until it intrudes on my enjoyment.)</p><p>MadCow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; I WILL NOT buy products advertised in this fasion.ABSOLUTELY .
And let the company whose product is advertised know that 's the reason .
( on a side note - Slashdot has a feature to allow users to disable advertising if they have high enough Karma or something , and I have n't enabled that yet... but I 'm coming close because of a few recent annoying ads and a couple popups .
I 'll support the site until it intrudes on my enjoyment .
) MadCow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;I WILL NOT buy products advertised in this fasion.ABSOLUTELY.
And let the company whose product is advertised know that's the reason.
(on a side note - Slashdot has a feature to allow users to disable advertising if they have high enough Karma or something, and I haven't enabled that yet... but I'm coming close because of a few recent annoying ads and a couple popups.
I'll support the site until it intrudes on my enjoyment.
)MadCow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362578</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267697280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On Mac OS X, Safari and a custom<nobr> <wbr></nobr><a href="http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm" title="mvps.org">/etc/hosts file</a> [mvps.org] does it for me. Oh, and <a href="http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/" title="github.com">ClickToFlash</a> [github.com] FTW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Mac OS X , Safari and a custom /etc/hosts file [ mvps.org ] does it for me .
Oh , and ClickToFlash [ github.com ] FTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Mac OS X, Safari and a custom /etc/hosts file [mvps.org] does it for me.
Oh, and ClickToFlash [github.com] FTW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361630</id>
	<title>This explains a lot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267735680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>"I think that Starbucks has the right to charge whatever they want for coffee; that doesn't mean they have the right to pee in your coffee."</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>I haven't been able to stomach the excuse for coffee that Starbuck's sells for many years. Now I know why.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think that Starbucks has the right to charge whatever they want for coffee ; that does n't mean they have the right to pee in your coffee .
" I have n't been able to stomach the excuse for coffee that Starbuck 's sells for many years .
Now I know why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "I think that Starbucks has the right to charge whatever they want for coffee; that doesn't mean they have the right to pee in your coffee.
" I haven't been able to stomach the excuse for coffee that Starbuck's sells for many years.
Now I know why.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363864</id>
	<title>We need to fight back to keep free sites running</title>
	<author>BcNexus</author>
	<datestamp>1267702380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of us want to keep ad-supported sites running. However, something has to be done. A couple reputable sites in the last two weeks have apparently served malware to me or people I know through doubleclick.net. The sites were wunderground.com and startribune.com <a href="http://www.twincities.com/business/ci\_14449032" title="twincities.com">(story here)</a> [twincities.com] <br> <br>I don't want to pay to support those sites. Neither do I want to pay slashdot (gasp). For that reason, I allow all the ads on these sites by whitelisting nearly everything NoScipt asks me about on each.<br> <br>Except now, I've had to blacklist doubleclick.net because <a href="http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=doubleclick.net" title="google.com">it seems to be the site serving malware for its reputable clients,</a> [google.com] wunderground, slashdot and the Star Tribune.<br> <br>Sites want to get paid for showing ads so they can keep running. I want to support my favorite free sites by allowing their ads. But I also want to keep my machine annoyance and security-risk free. Users and webmasters need to fight back somehow. Bennett's feedback idea sounds good enough to try. Let's give it a shot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us want to keep ad-supported sites running .
However , something has to be done .
A couple reputable sites in the last two weeks have apparently served malware to me or people I know through doubleclick.net .
The sites were wunderground.com and startribune.com ( story here ) [ twincities.com ] I do n't want to pay to support those sites .
Neither do I want to pay slashdot ( gasp ) .
For that reason , I allow all the ads on these sites by whitelisting nearly everything NoScipt asks me about on each .
Except now , I 've had to blacklist doubleclick.net because it seems to be the site serving malware for its reputable clients , [ google.com ] wunderground , slashdot and the Star Tribune .
Sites want to get paid for showing ads so they can keep running .
I want to support my favorite free sites by allowing their ads .
But I also want to keep my machine annoyance and security-risk free .
Users and webmasters need to fight back somehow .
Bennett 's feedback idea sounds good enough to try .
Let 's give it a shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us want to keep ad-supported sites running.
However, something has to be done.
A couple reputable sites in the last two weeks have apparently served malware to me or people I know through doubleclick.net.
The sites were wunderground.com and startribune.com (story here) [twincities.com]  I don't want to pay to support those sites.
Neither do I want to pay slashdot (gasp).
For that reason, I allow all the ads on these sites by whitelisting nearly everything NoScipt asks me about on each.
Except now, I've had to blacklist doubleclick.net because it seems to be the site serving malware for its reputable clients, [google.com] wunderground, slashdot and the Star Tribune.
Sites want to get paid for showing ads so they can keep running.
I want to support my favorite free sites by allowing their ads.
But I also want to keep my machine annoyance and security-risk free.
Users and webmasters need to fight back somehow.
Bennett's feedback idea sounds good enough to try.
Let's give it a shot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363640</id>
	<title>Advertisers Are Not Honest</title>
	<author>The Angry Mick</author>
	<datestamp>1267701300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>The advertiser network has to be honest</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Advertisements are, by their very nature, not the least bit inclined to honesty.
</p><p>Even if you could get users to agree to devote more eyeball time to, or simply abide, the more intrusive ads, you're still subjecting them to a flood of stuff they a) didn't ask for, or b) didn't want to see.
</p><p>Remember, it was an <b>advertiser</b> that dreamed up the offensive popups; it was an <b>advertiser</b> that came up with the idea of spam; it was an <b>advertiser</b> that thought robo-dialers were a good thing.  In fact, I can't think of any recent advertising advance that <b> <i>hasn't been</i> </b> intrusive, or invasive in some form or another.
</p><p>Advertisers need to get off the high horse of "the world can't exist without us" and re-evaluate their entire approach to customer relations.  Advertisers <b>do not</b> have a right to exist simply because they can create sales.  If an advertiser chooses a business model using approaches that are hostile to a consumer's life experience, they should expect nothing more than a welcome to the world of Darwinian economics.  Advertisers need to stop bitching about "why the customers won't do things our way..." and make a god-damned effort to communicate instead of dictate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The advertiser network has to be honest Advertisements are , by their very nature , not the least bit inclined to honesty .
Even if you could get users to agree to devote more eyeball time to , or simply abide , the more intrusive ads , you 're still subjecting them to a flood of stuff they a ) did n't ask for , or b ) did n't want to see .
Remember , it was an advertiser that dreamed up the offensive popups ; it was an advertiser that came up with the idea of spam ; it was an advertiser that thought robo-dialers were a good thing .
In fact , I ca n't think of any recent advertising advance that has n't been intrusive , or invasive in some form or another .
Advertisers need to get off the high horse of " the world ca n't exist without us " and re-evaluate their entire approach to customer relations .
Advertisers do not have a right to exist simply because they can create sales .
If an advertiser chooses a business model using approaches that are hostile to a consumer 's life experience , they should expect nothing more than a welcome to the world of Darwinian economics .
Advertisers need to stop bitching about " why the customers wo n't do things our way... " and make a god-damned effort to communicate instead of dictate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The advertiser network has to be honest Advertisements are, by their very nature, not the least bit inclined to honesty.
Even if you could get users to agree to devote more eyeball time to, or simply abide, the more intrusive ads, you're still subjecting them to a flood of stuff they a) didn't ask for, or b) didn't want to see.
Remember, it was an advertiser that dreamed up the offensive popups; it was an advertiser that came up with the idea of spam; it was an advertiser that thought robo-dialers were a good thing.
In fact, I can't think of any recent advertising advance that  hasn't been  intrusive, or invasive in some form or another.
Advertisers need to get off the high horse of "the world can't exist without us" and re-evaluate their entire approach to customer relations.
Advertisers do not have a right to exist simply because they can create sales.
If an advertiser chooses a business model using approaches that are hostile to a consumer's life experience, they should expect nothing more than a welcome to the world of Darwinian economics.
Advertisers need to stop bitching about "why the customers won't do things our way..." and make a god-damned effort to communicate instead of dictate.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280</id>
	<title>Ad-Block Perhaps?</title>
	<author>xquark</author>
	<datestamp>1267734000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean did you really need to write this long-winded meaningless rant? just download firefox and ad-block pro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean did you really need to write this long-winded meaningless rant ?
just download firefox and ad-block pro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean did you really need to write this long-winded meaningless rant?
just download firefox and ad-block pro.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361960</id>
	<title>Why not put this feature into the AV program?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267693920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anti Virus programs already insert themselves in between your browser session and the web.  I'm guessing that because this is the case, they can also easily generate the popup window origin redirect "strack trace" which you are asking for.  This data could then be automatically sent back to the AV vendor, where they can aggregate it, and report malicious adds themselves.  No user interaction required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti Virus programs already insert themselves in between your browser session and the web .
I 'm guessing that because this is the case , they can also easily generate the popup window origin redirect " strack trace " which you are asking for .
This data could then be automatically sent back to the AV vendor , where they can aggregate it , and report malicious adds themselves .
No user interaction required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti Virus programs already insert themselves in between your browser session and the web.
I'm guessing that because this is the case, they can also easily generate the popup window origin redirect "strack trace" which you are asking for.
This data could then be automatically sent back to the AV vendor, where they can aggregate it, and report malicious adds themselves.
No user interaction required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361760</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Dracos</author>
	<datestamp>1267736280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your equation is missing a critical element: map known ad hostnames to your hosts file and map them to 0.0.0.0.  DNS gets short circuited within localhost and immediately returns nothing.  Much less work for Firefox and the aforementioned plugins.</p><p>I have ~11,000 of these in my hosts file.  I don't see ads. If some new ones sneak through, I add that host.  Google seems to be tricky with their analytics stuff (Urchin), have to keep an eye on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your equation is missing a critical element : map known ad hostnames to your hosts file and map them to 0.0.0.0 .
DNS gets short circuited within localhost and immediately returns nothing .
Much less work for Firefox and the aforementioned plugins.I have ~ 11,000 of these in my hosts file .
I do n't see ads .
If some new ones sneak through , I add that host .
Google seems to be tricky with their analytics stuff ( Urchin ) , have to keep an eye on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your equation is missing a critical element: map known ad hostnames to your hosts file and map them to 0.0.0.0.
DNS gets short circuited within localhost and immediately returns nothing.
Much less work for Firefox and the aforementioned plugins.I have ~11,000 of these in my hosts file.
I don't see ads.
If some new ones sneak through, I add that host.
Google seems to be tricky with their analytics stuff (Urchin), have to keep an eye on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362060</id>
	<title>Re:TL;DR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267694400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Derp derp derp, I run Norton Antivirus. Derp derp de derrrrrrrp"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Derp derp derp , I run Norton Antivirus .
Derp derp de derrrrrrrp "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Derp derp derp, I run Norton Antivirus.
Derp derp de derrrrrrrp"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363776</id>
	<title>The poster has missed the point entirely</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1267702080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ads are being served to users that do not want them - but the advertisers are paying.  Who exactly is the customer here?  The end user viewing the ad or the advertiser?  What the poster missed here is that there are four players here:</p><ul><li>The advertiser with malicious or misleading content.</li><li>The ad purveyor who is collecting money from the advertiser for putting ads up on web sites.</li><li>The web site operator who is getting paid to have ads displayed to visitors.</li><li>Finally, the end user viewing the ad.</li></ul><p>OK, so who is in control of what here?  Well, the web site operator is selling "time" or "visitors" and might like to exhert some kind of control over the ads but isn't offered any such control.  Try convincing Google that you do not want to see any ads for multi-level marketing scams on your web site.  Go ahead, try.  No good, huh?  No, you don't have much control - maybe you can say no to "adult" ads.</p><p>The ad purveyor has complete control, but they are being paid plenty to post ads.  All kinds of ads.  They are heavily isolated from the end user, such that even if the end user finds out the CEOs phone number what exactly are they going to do?  The end user is not paying the ad purveyor - the advertiser is.</p><p>You will never find the advertiser to complain, and even if you did it wouldn't matter.  If you are going to advertise on the Internet you have to be immune to complaints.  Someone is going to complain all the time.  And it doesn't matter because the end user has no control whatsoever.</p><p>Sure, the end user can annoy the web site operator - who, by the way, is getting paid plenty to sit and take the complaints and do nothing.  Even if the web site operator wanted to do something they have no control.  They have two choices - stop advertising and stop the flow of money, or ignore the complaints.  The "threat" of moving to a different advertising purveyor is hollow - there are no "different" or "better" purveyors - just those that pay less.  The object here for the web site operator is to get as much for their "product" (visitors seeing ads) as possible.  End user complaints have no meaning unless you have four visitors that just keep coming back.</p><p>Oh, and the advertiser just doesn't care what anyone thinks about this process.  After all, they are the ones pushing misleading or harmful content, right?</p><p>It is all about control, power and relationships.  If you don't understand that you need to sit down and think this stuff through.  The Internet today is a fundamentally abusive relationship for the end user.  They are the "bottom boys" being dominated and get to take whatever is coming their way.  Don't like it?  Try a different browser that (hopefully) blocks ads better.  If you visit web sites where there are ads, you are going to be subjected to ads - abusive, misleading and harmful ads.  Your ability to affect this is small indeed - you can try to block the stream of ads coming your way or you can avoid the more heavily ad-laden web sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads are being served to users that do not want them - but the advertisers are paying .
Who exactly is the customer here ?
The end user viewing the ad or the advertiser ?
What the poster missed here is that there are four players here : The advertiser with malicious or misleading content.The ad purveyor who is collecting money from the advertiser for putting ads up on web sites.The web site operator who is getting paid to have ads displayed to visitors.Finally , the end user viewing the ad.OK , so who is in control of what here ?
Well , the web site operator is selling " time " or " visitors " and might like to exhert some kind of control over the ads but is n't offered any such control .
Try convincing Google that you do not want to see any ads for multi-level marketing scams on your web site .
Go ahead , try .
No good , huh ?
No , you do n't have much control - maybe you can say no to " adult " ads.The ad purveyor has complete control , but they are being paid plenty to post ads .
All kinds of ads .
They are heavily isolated from the end user , such that even if the end user finds out the CEOs phone number what exactly are they going to do ?
The end user is not paying the ad purveyor - the advertiser is.You will never find the advertiser to complain , and even if you did it would n't matter .
If you are going to advertise on the Internet you have to be immune to complaints .
Someone is going to complain all the time .
And it does n't matter because the end user has no control whatsoever.Sure , the end user can annoy the web site operator - who , by the way , is getting paid plenty to sit and take the complaints and do nothing .
Even if the web site operator wanted to do something they have no control .
They have two choices - stop advertising and stop the flow of money , or ignore the complaints .
The " threat " of moving to a different advertising purveyor is hollow - there are no " different " or " better " purveyors - just those that pay less .
The object here for the web site operator is to get as much for their " product " ( visitors seeing ads ) as possible .
End user complaints have no meaning unless you have four visitors that just keep coming back.Oh , and the advertiser just does n't care what anyone thinks about this process .
After all , they are the ones pushing misleading or harmful content , right ? It is all about control , power and relationships .
If you do n't understand that you need to sit down and think this stuff through .
The Internet today is a fundamentally abusive relationship for the end user .
They are the " bottom boys " being dominated and get to take whatever is coming their way .
Do n't like it ?
Try a different browser that ( hopefully ) blocks ads better .
If you visit web sites where there are ads , you are going to be subjected to ads - abusive , misleading and harmful ads .
Your ability to affect this is small indeed - you can try to block the stream of ads coming your way or you can avoid the more heavily ad-laden web sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads are being served to users that do not want them - but the advertisers are paying.
Who exactly is the customer here?
The end user viewing the ad or the advertiser?
What the poster missed here is that there are four players here:The advertiser with malicious or misleading content.The ad purveyor who is collecting money from the advertiser for putting ads up on web sites.The web site operator who is getting paid to have ads displayed to visitors.Finally, the end user viewing the ad.OK, so who is in control of what here?
Well, the web site operator is selling "time" or "visitors" and might like to exhert some kind of control over the ads but isn't offered any such control.
Try convincing Google that you do not want to see any ads for multi-level marketing scams on your web site.
Go ahead, try.
No good, huh?
No, you don't have much control - maybe you can say no to "adult" ads.The ad purveyor has complete control, but they are being paid plenty to post ads.
All kinds of ads.
They are heavily isolated from the end user, such that even if the end user finds out the CEOs phone number what exactly are they going to do?
The end user is not paying the ad purveyor - the advertiser is.You will never find the advertiser to complain, and even if you did it wouldn't matter.
If you are going to advertise on the Internet you have to be immune to complaints.
Someone is going to complain all the time.
And it doesn't matter because the end user has no control whatsoever.Sure, the end user can annoy the web site operator - who, by the way, is getting paid plenty to sit and take the complaints and do nothing.
Even if the web site operator wanted to do something they have no control.
They have two choices - stop advertising and stop the flow of money, or ignore the complaints.
The "threat" of moving to a different advertising purveyor is hollow - there are no "different" or "better" purveyors - just those that pay less.
The object here for the web site operator is to get as much for their "product" (visitors seeing ads) as possible.
End user complaints have no meaning unless you have four visitors that just keep coming back.Oh, and the advertiser just doesn't care what anyone thinks about this process.
After all, they are the ones pushing misleading or harmful content, right?It is all about control, power and relationships.
If you don't understand that you need to sit down and think this stuff through.
The Internet today is a fundamentally abusive relationship for the end user.
They are the "bottom boys" being dominated and get to take whatever is coming their way.
Don't like it?
Try a different browser that (hopefully) blocks ads better.
If you visit web sites where there are ads, you are going to be subjected to ads - abusive, misleading and harmful ads.
Your ability to affect this is small indeed - you can try to block the stream of ads coming your way or you can avoid the more heavily ad-laden web sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361896</id>
	<title>I haven't seen a pop up in years.</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1267693680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>clues for the clueless</p><p>1- don't write wall of texts detailing how out of it you are<br>2- use a HOSTS file, solves 90\% of problems. Good one here: <a href="http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/" title="fanboy.co.nz">http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/</a> [fanboy.co.nz]<br>3- use any browser that can block popups/flash/jscript. I personally use Opera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>clues for the clueless1- do n't write wall of texts detailing how out of it you are2- use a HOSTS file , solves 90 \ % of problems .
Good one here : http : //www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [ fanboy.co.nz ] 3- use any browser that can block popups/flash/jscript .
I personally use Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>clues for the clueless1- don't write wall of texts detailing how out of it you are2- use a HOSTS file, solves 90\% of problems.
Good one here: http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [fanboy.co.nz]3- use any browser that can block popups/flash/jscript.
I personally use Opera.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31364702</id>
	<title>Norton and IE - double trouble</title>
	<author>Rainwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1267705980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Norton and Internet Explorer.... hahahaha</p><p>hahaha</p><p>I thought computer savvy users stopped using BOTH of those programs years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Norton and Internet Explorer.... hahahahahahahaI thought computer savvy users stopped using BOTH of those programs years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Norton and Internet Explorer.... hahahahahahahaI thought computer savvy users stopped using BOTH of those programs years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363664</id>
	<title>Re:Norton Anti-virus</title>
	<author>Bourdain</author>
	<datestamp>1267701420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why does this guy get such a strong voice here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>why does this guy get such a strong voice here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why does this guy get such a strong voice here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361802</id>
	<title>Here are some choices for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267693260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Install live headers firefox plugin, keep a window open so you can scroll back once a popup arrives</p><p>2) Install squid on your local PC and set your web server to go through that. When you get a popup check where you went in access.log</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Install live headers firefox plugin , keep a window open so you can scroll back once a popup arrives2 ) Install squid on your local PC and set your web server to go through that .
When you get a popup check where you went in access.log</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Install live headers firefox plugin, keep a window open so you can scroll back once a popup arrives2) Install squid on your local PC and set your web server to go through that.
When you get a popup check where you went in access.log</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367954</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1267730760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be perfectly honest, I sometimes have to wonder how stupid "Joe Sixpack" really is (Or perhaps, just how terrible Internet Explorer really is!)  Why?  Because I have a confession to make that should probably force me to turn in my geek badge.</p><p>I run Windows and Linux about 50\%/50\% of the time (maybe 60/40 since Windows 7 came out).  When on Windows, I don't use No Script, Adblock Plus, or Flashblocker.  I browse the internet with reckless abandon, rarely examining links before I click on them.  I hit up shady torrent sites (I really don't pirate very much stuff...usually just books I own or installs for software I/someone else owns a license for but no disc).  I install random pieces of freeware/trialware without considering the validity of the source. From the standpoint of secure browsing, I am probably the worst Slashdotter who ever lived.</p><p>I do Virus and Malware scans once in awhile and very rarely do I come up with anything more than tracking cookies.  Perhaps an occasional Trojan (I can't remember seeing one in the last two years that I was concerned about in the slightest when I looked it up before I cleaned it) but even those are rare. </p><p>The only thing I really do to protect myself is to run Firefox in Windows, and do online banking type stuff on my Linux machine.  That is it.  On the other hand, I CONSTANTLY see people who use their computers a tenth as often as I do with machines riddled with malware.  Most of these people use IE, despite me always tossing Firefox on their desktop and telling them that if they use that they won't end up paying me $60 again in a month to clean their machines.  Seriously?  Is IE that bad or do I have to go to even shadier places than I already do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be perfectly honest , I sometimes have to wonder how stupid " Joe Sixpack " really is ( Or perhaps , just how terrible Internet Explorer really is !
) Why ?
Because I have a confession to make that should probably force me to turn in my geek badge.I run Windows and Linux about 50 \ % /50 \ % of the time ( maybe 60/40 since Windows 7 came out ) .
When on Windows , I do n't use No Script , Adblock Plus , or Flashblocker .
I browse the internet with reckless abandon , rarely examining links before I click on them .
I hit up shady torrent sites ( I really do n't pirate very much stuff...usually just books I own or installs for software I/someone else owns a license for but no disc ) .
I install random pieces of freeware/trialware without considering the validity of the source .
From the standpoint of secure browsing , I am probably the worst Slashdotter who ever lived.I do Virus and Malware scans once in awhile and very rarely do I come up with anything more than tracking cookies .
Perhaps an occasional Trojan ( I ca n't remember seeing one in the last two years that I was concerned about in the slightest when I looked it up before I cleaned it ) but even those are rare .
The only thing I really do to protect myself is to run Firefox in Windows , and do online banking type stuff on my Linux machine .
That is it .
On the other hand , I CONSTANTLY see people who use their computers a tenth as often as I do with machines riddled with malware .
Most of these people use IE , despite me always tossing Firefox on their desktop and telling them that if they use that they wo n't end up paying me $ 60 again in a month to clean their machines .
Seriously ? Is IE that bad or do I have to go to even shadier places than I already do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be perfectly honest, I sometimes have to wonder how stupid "Joe Sixpack" really is (Or perhaps, just how terrible Internet Explorer really is!
)  Why?
Because I have a confession to make that should probably force me to turn in my geek badge.I run Windows and Linux about 50\%/50\% of the time (maybe 60/40 since Windows 7 came out).
When on Windows, I don't use No Script, Adblock Plus, or Flashblocker.
I browse the internet with reckless abandon, rarely examining links before I click on them.
I hit up shady torrent sites (I really don't pirate very much stuff...usually just books I own or installs for software I/someone else owns a license for but no disc).
I install random pieces of freeware/trialware without considering the validity of the source.
From the standpoint of secure browsing, I am probably the worst Slashdotter who ever lived.I do Virus and Malware scans once in awhile and very rarely do I come up with anything more than tracking cookies.
Perhaps an occasional Trojan (I can't remember seeing one in the last two years that I was concerned about in the slightest when I looked it up before I cleaned it) but even those are rare.
The only thing I really do to protect myself is to run Firefox in Windows, and do online banking type stuff on my Linux machine.
That is it.
On the other hand, I CONSTANTLY see people who use their computers a tenth as often as I do with machines riddled with malware.
Most of these people use IE, despite me always tossing Firefox on their desktop and telling them that if they use that they won't end up paying me $60 again in a month to clean their machines.
Seriously?  Is IE that bad or do I have to go to even shadier places than I already do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361684</id>
	<title>What's a pop-up?</title>
	<author>kbmxpxfan</author>
	<datestamp>1267735920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, I can't remember the last time i got a pop-up ad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , I ca n't remember the last time i got a pop-up ad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, I can't remember the last time i got a pop-up ad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363070</id>
	<title>what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267698960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using Firefox. Install adblock+<br>Using IE, install ie7pro.<br>Yes I know it isn't nice and the sites need money to run. But it really speeds up your webbrowsing, it saves battery and some ad companies have had a poor history of servings ads with high CPU usage flash animations and not checking the content they serve.</p><p>For sites I like and I feel that are worth something to me, I disable adblock for that site. They rarely serve random generic ads but mostly ads that are relevant to the content of the site.</p><p>And then there is all the other crap.<br>Recently I spent an evening fixing my fathers computer and I had completely forgotten how many annoying messages you get about things that are doing what they are supposed to do in Windows.<br>Antivirus just updated the signatures or you are now connected to your wireless network , the computer is now on battery power etc. Shut up! Don't bother me unless something isn't working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using Firefox .
Install adblock + Using IE , install ie7pro.Yes I know it is n't nice and the sites need money to run .
But it really speeds up your webbrowsing , it saves battery and some ad companies have had a poor history of servings ads with high CPU usage flash animations and not checking the content they serve.For sites I like and I feel that are worth something to me , I disable adblock for that site .
They rarely serve random generic ads but mostly ads that are relevant to the content of the site.And then there is all the other crap.Recently I spent an evening fixing my fathers computer and I had completely forgotten how many annoying messages you get about things that are doing what they are supposed to do in Windows.Antivirus just updated the signatures or you are now connected to your wireless network , the computer is now on battery power etc .
Shut up !
Do n't bother me unless something is n't working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using Firefox.
Install adblock+Using IE, install ie7pro.Yes I know it isn't nice and the sites need money to run.
But it really speeds up your webbrowsing, it saves battery and some ad companies have had a poor history of servings ads with high CPU usage flash animations and not checking the content they serve.For sites I like and I feel that are worth something to me, I disable adblock for that site.
They rarely serve random generic ads but mostly ads that are relevant to the content of the site.And then there is all the other crap.Recently I spent an evening fixing my fathers computer and I had completely forgotten how many annoying messages you get about things that are doing what they are supposed to do in Windows.Antivirus just updated the signatures or you are now connected to your wireless network , the computer is now on battery power etc.
Shut up!
Don't bother me unless something isn't working.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363492</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267700640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just don't click the ad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do n't click the ad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just don't click the ad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484</id>
	<title>Norton Anti-virus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Occasionally while I'm surfing the web and a pop-up ad opens, my Norton Anti-Virus will alert me that it blocked an "attack" on my computer</p></div><p>Wait a second... he has a computer powerful enough to get pop-up ads while running Norton Anti-Virus?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Occasionally while I 'm surfing the web and a pop-up ad opens , my Norton Anti-Virus will alert me that it blocked an " attack " on my computerWait a second... he has a computer powerful enough to get pop-up ads while running Norton Anti-Virus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Occasionally while I'm surfing the web and a pop-up ad opens, my Norton Anti-Virus will alert me that it blocked an "attack" on my computerWait a second... he has a computer powerful enough to get pop-up ads while running Norton Anti-Virus?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362080</id>
	<title>Re:Norton Anti-virus</title>
	<author>Tibor the Hun</author>
	<datestamp>1267694520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NAV runs on Cray?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NAV runs on Cray ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NAV runs on Cray?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361956</id>
	<title>Bennett Articles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267693860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For all of the TL;DR and "Oh god, not him again" crowd.. why don't you skip reading and skip commenting on any article that is from Bennett?
<br>
It just seems like it would be simpler.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all of the TL ; DR and " Oh god , not him again " crowd.. why do n't you skip reading and skip commenting on any article that is from Bennett ?
It just seems like it would be simpler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all of the TL;DR and "Oh god, not him again" crowd.. why don't you skip reading and skip commenting on any article that is from Bennett?
It just seems like it would be simpler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361460</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus alone does alright for me. NoScript has options to block embedded content under options so adding FlashBlocker is a little redundant for my taste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus alone does alright for me .
NoScript has options to block embedded content under options so adding FlashBlocker is a little redundant for my taste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus alone does alright for me.
NoScript has options to block embedded content under options so adding FlashBlocker is a little redundant for my taste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362570</id>
	<title>Jeezus H. Christ</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1267697280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the F#$\%<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br>
Are we practicing for April Fools.  Is that it?<br>
I mean I hate the way that with MS you have to press 2 buttons to shutdown your computer. You know I press shutdown and I it asks me if I want to Restart, or Shutdown.  I mean really now,  why can't I just press the button that says shutdown and the f$\%^ing thing just shuts down.<br>
Oh, sorry. Did I digress?  Oh, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssssssssssssse me.  Yeah, we got that viscous popup issue that everyone seems to have figured out the solution to, except "The Last Retard" (TLR @copyright JumpDrive).  But I did happen to notice there were more than one of you, that had to jump into this, thinking this was an issue the cyber police should handle,  you being one of it's elite members using IE and Norton.<br>
I mean Jeeeesus H. Christ, WE ARE TECHNICAL GURUS,  WE HAVE IMPORTANT SHIT TO DISCUSS.  What would happen if we got distracted and missed an update on the latest splash screen changes on a linux distribution?  And dam it man, there could be a game that is or isn't going to be produced?  What if somebody had heard a rumor about "Duke Nukem Forever" coming out in 1Q of 2011?  Holy shit, the force is definitely not with you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the F # $ \ % .
Are we practicing for April Fools .
Is that it ?
I mean I hate the way that with MS you have to press 2 buttons to shutdown your computer .
You know I press shutdown and I it asks me if I want to Restart , or Shutdown .
I mean really now , why ca n't I just press the button that says shutdown and the f $ \ % ^ ing thing just shuts down .
Oh , sorry .
Did I digress ?
Oh , excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssssssssssssse me .
Yeah , we got that viscous popup issue that everyone seems to have figured out the solution to , except " The Last Retard " ( TLR @ copyright JumpDrive ) .
But I did happen to notice there were more than one of you , that had to jump into this , thinking this was an issue the cyber police should handle , you being one of it 's elite members using IE and Norton .
I mean Jeeeesus H. Christ , WE ARE TECHNICAL GURUS , WE HAVE IMPORTANT SHIT TO DISCUSS .
What would happen if we got distracted and missed an update on the latest splash screen changes on a linux distribution ?
And dam it man , there could be a game that is or is n't going to be produced ?
What if somebody had heard a rumor about " Duke Nukem Forever " coming out in 1Q of 2011 ?
Holy shit , the force is definitely not with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the F#$\% .
Are we practicing for April Fools.
Is that it?
I mean I hate the way that with MS you have to press 2 buttons to shutdown your computer.
You know I press shutdown and I it asks me if I want to Restart, or Shutdown.
I mean really now,  why can't I just press the button that says shutdown and the f$\%^ing thing just shuts down.
Oh, sorry.
Did I digress?
Oh, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssssssssssssse me.
Yeah, we got that viscous popup issue that everyone seems to have figured out the solution to, except "The Last Retard" (TLR @copyright JumpDrive).
But I did happen to notice there were more than one of you, that had to jump into this, thinking this was an issue the cyber police should handle,  you being one of it's elite members using IE and Norton.
I mean Jeeeesus H. Christ, WE ARE TECHNICAL GURUS,  WE HAVE IMPORTANT SHIT TO DISCUSS.
What would happen if we got distracted and missed an update on the latest splash screen changes on a linux distribution?
And dam it man, there could be a game that is or isn't going to be produced?
What if somebody had heard a rumor about "Duke Nukem Forever" coming out in 1Q of 2011?
Holy shit, the force is definitely not with you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367112</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocke</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1267722960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..it is the millions of joe sixpacks that care not to go through the trouble that it takes to install..</p><p>Sorry, but I hold to the belief that it is immoral to let suckers keep their money.  Stupid is supposed to be painful, it is only the pain that eventually causes growth and learning... or death but then I doubt anyone has even been spammed to death yet.</p><p>That said, the root of this problem is simple.  The ad networks themselves are the problem.  Too many layers of indirection for any hope of accountability.  The solution is fairly obvious, widespread use of browser tech that simply sets a limit on redirection.  Real content isn't hiding behind several layers of scripts and redirectors.  Force the content providers to host the ads in their own network (or at most one redirect away) like in the print and TV models and the malware problem goes away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ..it is the millions of joe sixpacks that care not to go through the trouble that it takes to install..Sorry , but I hold to the belief that it is immoral to let suckers keep their money .
Stupid is supposed to be painful , it is only the pain that eventually causes growth and learning... or death but then I doubt anyone has even been spammed to death yet.That said , the root of this problem is simple .
The ad networks themselves are the problem .
Too many layers of indirection for any hope of accountability .
The solution is fairly obvious , widespread use of browser tech that simply sets a limit on redirection .
Real content is n't hiding behind several layers of scripts and redirectors .
Force the content providers to host the ads in their own network ( or at most one redirect away ) like in the print and TV models and the malware problem goes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ..it is the millions of joe sixpacks that care not to go through the trouble that it takes to install..Sorry, but I hold to the belief that it is immoral to let suckers keep their money.
Stupid is supposed to be painful, it is only the pain that eventually causes growth and learning... or death but then I doubt anyone has even been spammed to death yet.That said, the root of this problem is simple.
The ad networks themselves are the problem.
Too many layers of indirection for any hope of accountability.
The solution is fairly obvious, widespread use of browser tech that simply sets a limit on redirection.
Real content isn't hiding behind several layers of scripts and redirectors.
Force the content providers to host the ads in their own network (or at most one redirect away) like in the print and TV models and the malware problem goes away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31368196</id>
	<title>LiveHTTPHeaders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267820040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>awesome plugin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>awesome plugin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>awesome plugin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363644</id>
	<title>how about a electro-shocking anti ad mouse</title>
	<author>mkilpatric</author>
	<datestamp>1267701360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes we need to address malicious ads, but short and sweet, they are there to generate revenue of sorts for legitimate business.  SO, teach the user to not click on the pretty ad the comes up, and why, poof, problem solved?

Maybe build a program that sends a signal to a special anti ad clicking mouse, every time you click, it shocks your poor little hand, until you stay away from those mean ol ads.

Heh, no, that will never work.

The idea to address the issue of malicious ads is not an easy one to address.  I think this letter is a great starting point, and should hopefully open some thinking, but my point of the mouse example is that we have to address it not only at the redirects level, but the end user.  If the "masses" of people out there would learn to not be afraid of technology, then we might make more progress.

These ads move on through fear, and fear is strong.  It gives the original writer a virtual (or maybe physical) hardon, because they know they have to the power to control thousands.

I like my mouse idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes we need to address malicious ads , but short and sweet , they are there to generate revenue of sorts for legitimate business .
SO , teach the user to not click on the pretty ad the comes up , and why , poof , problem solved ?
Maybe build a program that sends a signal to a special anti ad clicking mouse , every time you click , it shocks your poor little hand , until you stay away from those mean ol ads .
Heh , no , that will never work .
The idea to address the issue of malicious ads is not an easy one to address .
I think this letter is a great starting point , and should hopefully open some thinking , but my point of the mouse example is that we have to address it not only at the redirects level , but the end user .
If the " masses " of people out there would learn to not be afraid of technology , then we might make more progress .
These ads move on through fear , and fear is strong .
It gives the original writer a virtual ( or maybe physical ) hardon , because they know they have to the power to control thousands .
I like my mouse idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes we need to address malicious ads, but short and sweet, they are there to generate revenue of sorts for legitimate business.
SO, teach the user to not click on the pretty ad the comes up, and why, poof, problem solved?
Maybe build a program that sends a signal to a special anti ad clicking mouse, every time you click, it shocks your poor little hand, until you stay away from those mean ol ads.
Heh, no, that will never work.
The idea to address the issue of malicious ads is not an easy one to address.
I think this letter is a great starting point, and should hopefully open some thinking, but my point of the mouse example is that we have to address it not only at the redirects level, but the end user.
If the "masses" of people out there would learn to not be afraid of technology, then we might make more progress.
These ads move on through fear, and fear is strong.
It gives the original writer a virtual (or maybe physical) hardon, because they know they have to the power to control thousands.
I like my mouse idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362614</id>
	<title>Use OpenDNS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267697460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you create a free OpenDNS account, you can choose categories of website for which to block at the DNS level. Categories include, but are not limited to, pornography, drugs, alcohol, games and also advertisements. At the facilities that I manage, I use OpenDNS to block advertisements. What happens in the space where you would normally see an ad, either it will be a blank space on the page, or you will see an image saying that the ad was blocked by OpenDNS. It's been very useful and isn't a coincidence that the rate of virus infections dropped off almost instantly after putting the new DNS information in place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you create a free OpenDNS account , you can choose categories of website for which to block at the DNS level .
Categories include , but are not limited to , pornography , drugs , alcohol , games and also advertisements .
At the facilities that I manage , I use OpenDNS to block advertisements .
What happens in the space where you would normally see an ad , either it will be a blank space on the page , or you will see an image saying that the ad was blocked by OpenDNS .
It 's been very useful and is n't a coincidence that the rate of virus infections dropped off almost instantly after putting the new DNS information in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you create a free OpenDNS account, you can choose categories of website for which to block at the DNS level.
Categories include, but are not limited to, pornography, drugs, alcohol, games and also advertisements.
At the facilities that I manage, I use OpenDNS to block advertisements.
What happens in the space where you would normally see an ad, either it will be a blank space on the page, or you will see an image saying that the ad was blocked by OpenDNS.
It's been very useful and isn't a coincidence that the rate of virus infections dropped off almost instantly after putting the new DNS information in place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361474</id>
	<title>Adds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Timothy - ads are not the same thing as adds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Timothy - ads are not the same thing as adds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Timothy - ads are not the same thing as adds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361746</id>
	<title>Norton?</title>
	<author>HerculesMO</author>
	<datestamp>1267736220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're using Norton I would wonder what kind of advice you are really qualified to give out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're using Norton I would wonder what kind of advice you are really qualified to give out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're using Norton I would wonder what kind of advice you are really qualified to give out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361428</id>
	<title>If you complain...</title>
	<author>Enuratique</author>
	<datestamp>1267734660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It only reinforces that you saw the ad... This approach may backfire and incentivize this type of behavior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It only reinforces that you saw the ad... This approach may backfire and incentivize this type of behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only reinforces that you saw the ad... This approach may backfire and incentivize this type of behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361292</id>
	<title>I agree!</title>
	<author>patchouly</author>
	<datestamp>1267734060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree 100\% with Peter.  Using that configuration, there are no pop ups and no ads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 100 \ % with Peter .
Using that configuration , there are no pop ups and no ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 100\% with Peter.
Using that configuration, there are no pop ups and no ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246</id>
	<title>Firefox + NoScript + Adblock Plus + FlashBlocker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267733940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't recall the last time I have seen a pop-up ad with the above configuration.  They literally aren't a problem for me.  Oh, and I run Linux, so it doesn't matter anyway...the code won't execute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't recall the last time I have seen a pop-up ad with the above configuration .
They literally are n't a problem for me .
Oh , and I run Linux , so it does n't matter anyway...the code wo n't execute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't recall the last time I have seen a pop-up ad with the above configuration.
They literally aren't a problem for me.
Oh, and I run Linux, so it doesn't matter anyway...the code won't execute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363784</id>
	<title>Re:Pop Ups</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1267702080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She can read your post.  GLADOSS.</p><p>Uh huh.  All right guys, I didn't play the game the first time and I'm not particularly interested this time.  At least TRY to write a real post first, then go back and fiddle your fun into it.  That was so stilted even the Google AI could figure it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She can read your post .
GLADOSS.Uh huh .
All right guys , I did n't play the game the first time and I 'm not particularly interested this time .
At least TRY to write a real post first , then go back and fiddle your fun into it .
That was so stilted even the Google AI could figure it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She can read your post.
GLADOSS.Uh huh.
All right guys, I didn't play the game the first time and I'm not particularly interested this time.
At least TRY to write a real post first, then go back and fiddle your fun into it.
That was so stilted even the Google AI could figure it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31368568</id>
	<title>Re:TL;DR</title>
	<author>dotancohen</author>
	<datestamp>1267781700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He basically wants someone to tell him about Fiddler.</p></div><p>Fiddler likely won't run on the submitter's Gentoo box. Wine is not listed as a supported platform:<br><a href="http://www.fiddler2.com/Fiddler2/version.asp" title="fiddler2.com">http://www.fiddler2.com/Fiddler2/version.asp</a> [fiddler2.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He basically wants someone to tell him about Fiddler.Fiddler likely wo n't run on the submitter 's Gentoo box .
Wine is not listed as a supported platform : http : //www.fiddler2.com/Fiddler2/version.asp [ fiddler2.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He basically wants someone to tell him about Fiddler.Fiddler likely won't run on the submitter's Gentoo box.
Wine is not listed as a supported platform:http://www.fiddler2.com/Fiddler2/version.asp [fiddler2.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361448</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31366284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31368568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31366042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31369254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31368850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31364126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31364458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_192241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31364126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363320
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31366284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31366042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31364458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31365476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31369254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31368850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31367244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_192241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31363892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31368568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31361452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_192241.31362060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
