<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_09_1933215</id>
	<title>Best Resource For Identifying Legit Applications?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268123400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bjb writes <i>"While helping a somewhat computer illiterate person figure out a problem recently, they mentioned that PDF files had recently stopped working. Upon investigation I found something installed called 'PDF Suite.' Never having heard of it, I Googled it with 'malware' and other key words, but nothing turned up, though my suspicion remained (and was somewhat <a href="http://www.mywot.com/">confirmed by WOT</a>.) So my question is, where can you go to find out if something is legitimate? Because the person I'm helping is on a dial-up connection, downloading malware detection applications (and updates) is too heavy consider. And I don't maintain a USB stick with such apps, since I don't do this kind of thing very often. Where can you quickly find information?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bjb writes " While helping a somewhat computer illiterate person figure out a problem recently , they mentioned that PDF files had recently stopped working .
Upon investigation I found something installed called 'PDF Suite .
' Never having heard of it , I Googled it with 'malware ' and other key words , but nothing turned up , though my suspicion remained ( and was somewhat confirmed by WOT .
) So my question is , where can you go to find out if something is legitimate ?
Because the person I 'm helping is on a dial-up connection , downloading malware detection applications ( and updates ) is too heavy consider .
And I do n't maintain a USB stick with such apps , since I do n't do this kind of thing very often .
Where can you quickly find information ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bjb writes "While helping a somewhat computer illiterate person figure out a problem recently, they mentioned that PDF files had recently stopped working.
Upon investigation I found something installed called 'PDF Suite.
' Never having heard of it, I Googled it with 'malware' and other key words, but nothing turned up, though my suspicion remained (and was somewhat confirmed by WOT.
) So my question is, where can you go to find out if something is legitimate?
Because the person I'm helping is on a dial-up connection, downloading malware detection applications (and updates) is too heavy consider.
And I don't maintain a USB stick with such apps, since I don't do this kind of thing very often.
Where can you quickly find information?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418822</id>
	<title>Did you consider...</title>
	<author>eeth</author>
	<datestamp>1268127900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>that it might not be malware, but simply ancient software incompatible with newer documents?</htmltext>
<tokenext>that it might not be malware , but simply ancient software incompatible with newer documents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that it might not be malware, but simply ancient software incompatible with newer documents?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31425788</id>
	<title>Research</title>
	<author>Brian Edwards</author>
	<datestamp>1268234820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best resource for discovering legitimate applications is in your own skull.  The second-best is an internet search engine.<br>
<br>
<tt>"Upon investigation I found something installed called 'PDF Suite.' Never having heard of it, I Googled it with 'malware' and other key words, but nothing turned up..."</tt> <br>
<br>
Dig deeper.  I googled "PDF Suite" and found pdf-suite.com, which claims to be "<i>a leader in the "Online Software Selling" business reaching 5.4 million unique visitors per month (Google Analytics, January 2008).</i>"  I then checked whois.org to see who owned pdf-suite.com, and found it was owned by Interactive Brands of Montreal, Quebec.  interactivebrands.com claims to be "<i>a privately held corporation, it was formed by a team of experienced industry professionals who had a vision of creating the &ldquo;ultimate&rdquo; digital-market-dedicated affiliate programs.</i>"<br>
<br>
Googling "interactivebrands.com" brought up <a href="http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/interactivebrands.com/summary/" title="siteadvisor.com" rel="nofollow">this note</a> [siteadvisor.com]:<br>
<br>
<b>"McAfee TrustedSource web reputation analysis found potential security risks with this site. Use with extreme caution."</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best resource for discovering legitimate applications is in your own skull .
The second-best is an internet search engine .
" Upon investigation I found something installed called 'PDF Suite .
' Never having heard of it , I Googled it with 'malware ' and other key words , but nothing turned up... " Dig deeper .
I googled " PDF Suite " and found pdf-suite.com , which claims to be " a leader in the " Online Software Selling " business reaching 5.4 million unique visitors per month ( Google Analytics , January 2008 ) .
" I then checked whois.org to see who owned pdf-suite.com , and found it was owned by Interactive Brands of Montreal , Quebec .
interactivebrands.com claims to be " a privately held corporation , it was formed by a team of experienced industry professionals who had a vision of creating the    ultimate    digital-market-dedicated affiliate programs .
" Googling " interactivebrands.com " brought up this note [ siteadvisor.com ] : " McAfee TrustedSource web reputation analysis found potential security risks with this site .
Use with extreme caution .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best resource for discovering legitimate applications is in your own skull.
The second-best is an internet search engine.
"Upon investigation I found something installed called 'PDF Suite.
' Never having heard of it, I Googled it with 'malware' and other key words, but nothing turned up..." 

Dig deeper.
I googled "PDF Suite" and found pdf-suite.com, which claims to be "a leader in the "Online Software Selling" business reaching 5.4 million unique visitors per month (Google Analytics, January 2008).
"  I then checked whois.org to see who owned pdf-suite.com, and found it was owned by Interactive Brands of Montreal, Quebec.
interactivebrands.com claims to be "a privately held corporation, it was formed by a team of experienced industry professionals who had a vision of creating the “ultimate” digital-market-dedicated affiliate programs.
"

Googling "interactivebrands.com" brought up this note [siteadvisor.com]:

"McAfee TrustedSource web reputation analysis found potential security risks with this site.
Use with extreme caution.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418626</id>
	<title>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumsta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumstances</b></p><p>New details about Rob Malda's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years, Kathleen. Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup, citing Malda&rsquo;s infidelity with various street trannies.</p><p>In 2007, Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car. He told his wife that he &ldquo;stopped to help a person crying.&rdquo; Several other hookers sold tales of Malda&rsquo;s solicitation to the tabloids, and all of them were convinced to recant, with one exception:<br>Paul Barresi, a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke, tells Page Six: &ldquo;I called [Malda attorney] Marty &lsquo;Bull Dog&rsquo; Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.&rdquo; And they would all recant their stories.</p><p>&ldquo;In less than 10 days,&rdquo; Barresi says, &ldquo;I got them all to sign sworn, videotaped depositions, stating it wasn&rsquo;t Malda himself, but rather a look-alike, who they&rsquo;d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.&rdquo; In 2008, she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.</p><p>Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda&rsquo;s car in 2007. After being caught by police, she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn&rsquo;t change her story. How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rob Malda 's tranny died under mysterious circumstancesNew details about Rob Malda 's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years , Kathleen .
Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup , citing Malda    s infidelity with various street trannies.In 2007 , Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car .
He told his wife that he    stopped to help a person crying.    Several other hookers sold tales of Malda    s solicitation to the tabloids , and all of them were convinced to recant , with one exception : Paul Barresi , a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke , tells Page Six :    I called [ Malda attorney ] Marty    Bull Dog    Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.    And they would all recant their stories.    In less than 10 days ,    Barresi says ,    I got them all to sign sworn , videotaped depositions , stating it wasn    t Malda himself , but rather a look-alike , who they    d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.    In 2008 , she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda    s car in 2007 .
After being caught by police , she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn    t change her story .
How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rob Malda's tranny died under mysterious circumstancesNew details about Rob Malda's past may come out in the divorce proceedings with his wife of 8 years, Kathleen.
Page 6 speculates that she may fight the prenup, citing Malda’s infidelity with various street trannies.In 2007, Malda was caught by Dexter police with a transvestite hooker in his car.
He told his wife that he “stopped to help a person crying.” Several other hookers sold tales of Malda’s solicitation to the tabloids, and all of them were convinced to recant, with one exception:Paul Barresi, a private detective who claims he was hired for damage control by Malda when the scandal broke, tells Page Six: “I called [Malda attorney] Marty ‘Bull Dog’ Singer and told him I could round up all the transsexuals alleging sexual dalliances with Malda.” And they would all recant their stories.“In less than 10 days,” Barresi says, “I got them all to sign sworn, videotaped depositions, stating it wasn’t Malda himself, but rather a look-alike, who they’d encountered - with the exception of Suiuli.” In 2008, she fell to her death from her Dexter roof.Atisone Suiuli was the tranny found in Malda’s car in 2007.
After being caught by police, she had proof that she was with Malda and wouldn’t change her story.
How convenient for him that she died soon afterwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31422376</id>
	<title>Re:Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes availab</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268149740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fuckin hate those repositories and wish to always manage my own software.  I hate the fact that standard app installers are not used for linux.  One of the major reasons (besides being crappy ass super slow) I don't use linux is because of the software installation issues.</p><p>Futhermore linux sucks and will probably always fail at being a desktop operating system.  Compiling everything into the kernal just plain blows.  No one using KDE successfully when it is the obvious fucking choice as the main desktop for any PC running Linux is another obvious blunder.</p><p>It needs scrapped and rebuilt as objects but then it wouldn't be a unix clone then would it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fuckin hate those repositories and wish to always manage my own software .
I hate the fact that standard app installers are not used for linux .
One of the major reasons ( besides being crappy ass super slow ) I do n't use linux is because of the software installation issues.Futhermore linux sucks and will probably always fail at being a desktop operating system .
Compiling everything into the kernal just plain blows .
No one using KDE successfully when it is the obvious fucking choice as the main desktop for any PC running Linux is another obvious blunder.It needs scrapped and rebuilt as objects but then it would n't be a unix clone then would it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fuckin hate those repositories and wish to always manage my own software.
I hate the fact that standard app installers are not used for linux.
One of the major reasons (besides being crappy ass super slow) I don't use linux is because of the software installation issues.Futhermore linux sucks and will probably always fail at being a desktop operating system.
Compiling everything into the kernal just plain blows.
No one using KDE successfully when it is the obvious fucking choice as the main desktop for any PC running Linux is another obvious blunder.It needs scrapped and rebuilt as objects but then it wouldn't be a unix clone then would it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31424200</id>
	<title>www.theopendisc.com</title>
	<author>ei4anb</author>
	<datestamp>1268216400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>download the open disc and burn a copy for them</htmltext>
<tokenext>download the open disc and burn a copy for them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>download the open disc and burn a copy for them</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418912</id>
	<title>You can't really tell.</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1268128260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think there's a good way to tell, short of a truly rigorous approach that takes a long time to verify all the software on a system.  It's a combination of (1) too many things happening at once on a modern system, (2) lack of good DRM-type authentication (which would allow you to approve or disapprove vendors, or approve each software package independently if from a noncommercial vendor), (3) too much of the stuff that's happening being distributed to different locations.  In linux, you can usually tell pretty easily what's going on by running ps and tracing down the processes--okay, you can hide stuff in libraries and modify the code, but you've got a good first step there..  In windows, some is in processes and some is in services, and it's a pain to even put together a list of everything that's running, much less find out where it comes from or whether it's the software it claims to be.  It should be easy, but I don't know of a good way to do it.</p><p>There are anti-malware programs that take a common swipe at your system.  Sometimes they work.  But it's like practicing bad medicine as opposed to figuring out what's really wrong--it may work sometimes, but it doesn't solve the larger problem.  The reality is it's a completely broken system.  We can hunt down bugs, and if we lock down a system from install-time and don't do anything too adventurous or unusual we can be sure to keep it clean, but our security model is basically wrong because we're blacklisting instead of whitelisting, and it's hard to even get a list in the first place.  Why aren't there system utilities that automatically generate a list of all running processes and services and anything else that uses CPU time, lists their pipes to each other and to the file system and the network, and then verifies all of that against digitally signed configurations from the vendor?</p><p>If the software isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing, it should shut down after giving you a chance to override the shutdown.  So leave the end-user with control, but leave the default conditions so for the 99.99\% of end users who don't want the nondefault behavior, their machines are safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think there 's a good way to tell , short of a truly rigorous approach that takes a long time to verify all the software on a system .
It 's a combination of ( 1 ) too many things happening at once on a modern system , ( 2 ) lack of good DRM-type authentication ( which would allow you to approve or disapprove vendors , or approve each software package independently if from a noncommercial vendor ) , ( 3 ) too much of the stuff that 's happening being distributed to different locations .
In linux , you can usually tell pretty easily what 's going on by running ps and tracing down the processes--okay , you can hide stuff in libraries and modify the code , but you 've got a good first step there.. In windows , some is in processes and some is in services , and it 's a pain to even put together a list of everything that 's running , much less find out where it comes from or whether it 's the software it claims to be .
It should be easy , but I do n't know of a good way to do it.There are anti-malware programs that take a common swipe at your system .
Sometimes they work .
But it 's like practicing bad medicine as opposed to figuring out what 's really wrong--it may work sometimes , but it does n't solve the larger problem .
The reality is it 's a completely broken system .
We can hunt down bugs , and if we lock down a system from install-time and do n't do anything too adventurous or unusual we can be sure to keep it clean , but our security model is basically wrong because we 're blacklisting instead of whitelisting , and it 's hard to even get a list in the first place .
Why are n't there system utilities that automatically generate a list of all running processes and services and anything else that uses CPU time , lists their pipes to each other and to the file system and the network , and then verifies all of that against digitally signed configurations from the vendor ? If the software is n't doing what it 's supposed to be doing , it should shut down after giving you a chance to override the shutdown .
So leave the end-user with control , but leave the default conditions so for the 99.99 \ % of end users who do n't want the nondefault behavior , their machines are safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think there's a good way to tell, short of a truly rigorous approach that takes a long time to verify all the software on a system.
It's a combination of (1) too many things happening at once on a modern system, (2) lack of good DRM-type authentication (which would allow you to approve or disapprove vendors, or approve each software package independently if from a noncommercial vendor), (3) too much of the stuff that's happening being distributed to different locations.
In linux, you can usually tell pretty easily what's going on by running ps and tracing down the processes--okay, you can hide stuff in libraries and modify the code, but you've got a good first step there..  In windows, some is in processes and some is in services, and it's a pain to even put together a list of everything that's running, much less find out where it comes from or whether it's the software it claims to be.
It should be easy, but I don't know of a good way to do it.There are anti-malware programs that take a common swipe at your system.
Sometimes they work.
But it's like practicing bad medicine as opposed to figuring out what's really wrong--it may work sometimes, but it doesn't solve the larger problem.
The reality is it's a completely broken system.
We can hunt down bugs, and if we lock down a system from install-time and don't do anything too adventurous or unusual we can be sure to keep it clean, but our security model is basically wrong because we're blacklisting instead of whitelisting, and it's hard to even get a list in the first place.
Why aren't there system utilities that automatically generate a list of all running processes and services and anything else that uses CPU time, lists their pipes to each other and to the file system and the network, and then verifies all of that against digitally signed configurations from the vendor?If the software isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing, it should shut down after giving you a chance to override the shutdown.
So leave the end-user with control, but leave the default conditions so for the 99.99\% of end users who don't want the nondefault behavior, their machines are safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419938</id>
	<title>Re:What is your OS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268132820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, not even necessary.  With the vast number of badware programs, a good theory to go with is "if you haven't heard of it personally, consider it badware until such time you've thoroughly researched it yourself".</p><p>Just like the legal system in a guilty until proven innocent sorta way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , not even necessary .
With the vast number of badware programs , a good theory to go with is " if you have n't heard of it personally , consider it badware until such time you 've thoroughly researched it yourself " .Just like the legal system in a guilty until proven innocent sorta way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, not even necessary.
With the vast number of badware programs, a good theory to go with is "if you haven't heard of it personally, consider it badware until such time you've thoroughly researched it yourself".Just like the legal system in a guilty until proven innocent sorta way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420146</id>
	<title>Re:Why are you doing this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268133840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hot chick probably?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hot chick probably ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hot chick probably?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419484</id>
	<title>Re:Why are you doing this?</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1268130720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Are you getting paid? And if not, why not? And if so, why are you trying to do this over the phone?</p></div><p>Because some people are actually nice and want to help out their friends and family?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you getting paid ?
And if not , why not ?
And if so , why are you trying to do this over the phone ? Because some people are actually nice and want to help out their friends and family ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Are you getting paid?
And if not, why not?
And if so, why are you trying to do this over the phone?Because some people are actually nice and want to help out their friends and family?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419796</id>
	<title>Re:What is your OS?</title>
	<author>DJLuc1d</author>
	<datestamp>1268132100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take the plunge. Assume, and I know this sounds crazy, but just for a moment assume that like 92\% of people who have a computer, that it is a windows machine. That is one thing I am sick of people doing on help boards. First question is OS, next response is always 'windows' unless it is a mac forum. Stop answering a question with a question and actually try and help. And how exactly would this help someone determine what is malware ? Malware is malware, regardless of what version of windows you are running.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the plunge .
Assume , and I know this sounds crazy , but just for a moment assume that like 92 \ % of people who have a computer , that it is a windows machine .
That is one thing I am sick of people doing on help boards .
First question is OS , next response is always 'windows ' unless it is a mac forum .
Stop answering a question with a question and actually try and help .
And how exactly would this help someone determine what is malware ?
Malware is malware , regardless of what version of windows you are running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the plunge.
Assume, and I know this sounds crazy, but just for a moment assume that like 92\% of people who have a computer, that it is a windows machine.
That is one thing I am sick of people doing on help boards.
First question is OS, next response is always 'windows' unless it is a mac forum.
Stop answering a question with a question and actually try and help.
And how exactly would this help someone determine what is malware ?
Malware is malware, regardless of what version of windows you are running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421506</id>
	<title>Dude a flash stick is cheap</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1268141520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get one at Big lots for $10 for a 4Gb, or if you check with <a href="http://www.surpluscomputers.com/featured-cameras/cg-73/usb-flash-drives.html" title="surpluscomputers.com">surpluscomputers</a> [surpluscomputers.com] occasionally you can get bundles of 1Gb to 2Gb sticks for dirt cheap. So get a really cheap stick and then get the <a href="http://depositfiles.com/en/files/mzil03xv9" title="depositfiles.com">Computer Repair Utility Toolkit V2</a> [depositfiles.com] which is like the Swiss Army Knife of PC Tools. So much more than simple malware repair it has fixes for networking, file recovery,info, scripts and tweaks, and it is simple to add you own. Just add Malwarebytes Antimalware and portable Firefox along with updating the included ClamAV and you have a one stop PC shop in your pocket.</p><p>

but trying to guess what is a nasty and what ain't, especially when dealing with dialup, is simply a fool's game. There are literally thousands of new pieces of nasty released every day, and even if you guess right on this one there is no telling what else could be on that machine. Take the Toolkit I linked to above, add installers for Comodo AV and MalwareBytes, along with the latest Firefox, and simply stick the flash on your keyring and be done with it. Just plug the stick into any PC USB port once a week to update it and you have a full toolset in your pocket. So what if you don't do it everyday? The few times you DO run into something like this you will be able to handle it easily and look like a genius at the same time, all for a few dollar flash stick and less than 5 minutes a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get one at Big lots for $ 10 for a 4Gb , or if you check with surpluscomputers [ surpluscomputers.com ] occasionally you can get bundles of 1Gb to 2Gb sticks for dirt cheap .
So get a really cheap stick and then get the Computer Repair Utility Toolkit V2 [ depositfiles.com ] which is like the Swiss Army Knife of PC Tools .
So much more than simple malware repair it has fixes for networking , file recovery,info , scripts and tweaks , and it is simple to add you own .
Just add Malwarebytes Antimalware and portable Firefox along with updating the included ClamAV and you have a one stop PC shop in your pocket .
but trying to guess what is a nasty and what ai n't , especially when dealing with dialup , is simply a fool 's game .
There are literally thousands of new pieces of nasty released every day , and even if you guess right on this one there is no telling what else could be on that machine .
Take the Toolkit I linked to above , add installers for Comodo AV and MalwareBytes , along with the latest Firefox , and simply stick the flash on your keyring and be done with it .
Just plug the stick into any PC USB port once a week to update it and you have a full toolset in your pocket .
So what if you do n't do it everyday ?
The few times you DO run into something like this you will be able to handle it easily and look like a genius at the same time , all for a few dollar flash stick and less than 5 minutes a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get one at Big lots for $10 for a 4Gb, or if you check with surpluscomputers [surpluscomputers.com] occasionally you can get bundles of 1Gb to 2Gb sticks for dirt cheap.
So get a really cheap stick and then get the Computer Repair Utility Toolkit V2 [depositfiles.com] which is like the Swiss Army Knife of PC Tools.
So much more than simple malware repair it has fixes for networking, file recovery,info, scripts and tweaks, and it is simple to add you own.
Just add Malwarebytes Antimalware and portable Firefox along with updating the included ClamAV and you have a one stop PC shop in your pocket.
but trying to guess what is a nasty and what ain't, especially when dealing with dialup, is simply a fool's game.
There are literally thousands of new pieces of nasty released every day, and even if you guess right on this one there is no telling what else could be on that machine.
Take the Toolkit I linked to above, add installers for Comodo AV and MalwareBytes, along with the latest Firefox, and simply stick the flash on your keyring and be done with it.
Just plug the stick into any PC USB port once a week to update it and you have a full toolset in your pocket.
So what if you don't do it everyday?
The few times you DO run into something like this you will be able to handle it easily and look like a genius at the same time, all for a few dollar flash stick and less than 5 minutes a week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419940</id>
	<title>Re:Assume malware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268132820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two differences between Windows/iPhone and the Linux model that need to be considered:</p><p>1) Linux is not a monopoly on its platform(s): there are several distros each trying to get marketshare<br>2) You can install software outside the repository (disclaimer: may not apply equally to all distros)</p><p>You're right that there's a level of trust, and that trust for Microsoft is quite lacking among slashdot readers.  But the average Joe would welcome such a change!  Less spyware/adware!  Easier updates!  Better security!  Easier to install!</p><p>Microsoft would have to be careful: how do you balance restricting the applications in the store (to maintain quality) while being open enough to avoid antitrust issues?  Apple, not needing to worry as much about antitrust, wields the banning button like a hand grenade instead of a scalpel.  Microsoft my try some sort of certification process, but I have my doubts about that, too.</p><p>But why does it have to be Microsoft to begin with?  A trusted third party could put together the package list and installer, Microsoft just supplies an integrated mechanism.  This might side a little more on "open" (a odd word to apply to Microsoft) than would be ideal, but it's certainly better than what we have today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two differences between Windows/iPhone and the Linux model that need to be considered : 1 ) Linux is not a monopoly on its platform ( s ) : there are several distros each trying to get marketshare2 ) You can install software outside the repository ( disclaimer : may not apply equally to all distros ) You 're right that there 's a level of trust , and that trust for Microsoft is quite lacking among slashdot readers .
But the average Joe would welcome such a change !
Less spyware/adware !
Easier updates !
Better security !
Easier to install ! Microsoft would have to be careful : how do you balance restricting the applications in the store ( to maintain quality ) while being open enough to avoid antitrust issues ?
Apple , not needing to worry as much about antitrust , wields the banning button like a hand grenade instead of a scalpel .
Microsoft my try some sort of certification process , but I have my doubts about that , too.But why does it have to be Microsoft to begin with ?
A trusted third party could put together the package list and installer , Microsoft just supplies an integrated mechanism .
This might side a little more on " open " ( a odd word to apply to Microsoft ) than would be ideal , but it 's certainly better than what we have today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two differences between Windows/iPhone and the Linux model that need to be considered:1) Linux is not a monopoly on its platform(s): there are several distros each trying to get marketshare2) You can install software outside the repository (disclaimer: may not apply equally to all distros)You're right that there's a level of trust, and that trust for Microsoft is quite lacking among slashdot readers.
But the average Joe would welcome such a change!
Less spyware/adware!
Easier updates!
Better security!
Easier to install!Microsoft would have to be careful: how do you balance restricting the applications in the store (to maintain quality) while being open enough to avoid antitrust issues?
Apple, not needing to worry as much about antitrust, wields the banning button like a hand grenade instead of a scalpel.
Microsoft my try some sort of certification process, but I have my doubts about that, too.But why does it have to be Microsoft to begin with?
A trusted third party could put together the package list and installer, Microsoft just supplies an integrated mechanism.
This might side a little more on "open" (a odd word to apply to Microsoft) than would be ideal, but it's certainly better than what we have today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423612</id>
	<title>Re:beware!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268252040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the Ziff-Davis media company sure didn't do the due diligence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the Ziff-Davis media company sure did n't do the due diligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the Ziff-Davis media company sure didn't do the due diligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31424320</id>
	<title>GPL</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1268218620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I realize that this is not the angle the OP was after, but as far as I can see, the most reliable way to ensure that your programs are legitimate is to use open source software. It is not bulletproof, since there are potential problems related to patents, but I think if the owners of the alleged patents were serious, they would have come out of the woodwork by now. And we shouldn't forget that most SW patents seem to be of a very dubious nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize that this is not the angle the OP was after , but as far as I can see , the most reliable way to ensure that your programs are legitimate is to use open source software .
It is not bulletproof , since there are potential problems related to patents , but I think if the owners of the alleged patents were serious , they would have come out of the woodwork by now .
And we should n't forget that most SW patents seem to be of a very dubious nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize that this is not the angle the OP was after, but as far as I can see, the most reliable way to ensure that your programs are legitimate is to use open source software.
It is not bulletproof, since there are potential problems related to patents, but I think if the owners of the alleged patents were serious, they would have come out of the woodwork by now.
And we shouldn't forget that most SW patents seem to be of a very dubious nature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418644</id>
	<title>What is your OS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That will help in figuring out where to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That will help in figuring out where to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That will help in figuring out where to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419134</id>
	<title>Re:Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes availab</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268129280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990's way of installing software.</p></div><p>No, that's pretty much how everyone install applications except you linux fags</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990 's way of installing software.No , that 's pretty much how everyone install applications except you linux fags</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990's way of installing software.No, that's pretty much how everyone install applications except you linux fags
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419170</id>
	<title>Re:Why are you doing this?</title>
	<author>Merc248</author>
	<datestamp>1268129460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I've tried introducing a revenue stream, it's only resulted in people shying away from getting my help.</p><p>Even though it means, "yay, more free time for myself," it also means, "wow, people really don't value technical support."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I 've tried introducing a revenue stream , it 's only resulted in people shying away from getting my help.Even though it means , " yay , more free time for myself , " it also means , " wow , people really do n't value technical support .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I've tried introducing a revenue stream, it's only resulted in people shying away from getting my help.Even though it means, "yay, more free time for myself," it also means, "wow, people really don't value technical support.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419508</id>
	<title>Re:Why are you doing this?</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1268130840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I feel the same way with any service I provide. Want me to hold the door for you?  Pay up.  Want me to help you move?  Pay.  Pick up a coke while I'm up? Pay.  Jumpstart your car?  Fix your collar?  Point out your shoe's untied?  That's right, PAY.<br> <br>Who needs friends as long as you have money?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I feel the same way with any service I provide .
Want me to hold the door for you ?
Pay up .
Want me to help you move ?
Pay. Pick up a coke while I 'm up ?
Pay. Jumpstart your car ?
Fix your collar ?
Point out your shoe 's untied ?
That 's right , PAY .
Who needs friends as long as you have money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I feel the same way with any service I provide.
Want me to hold the door for you?
Pay up.
Want me to help you move?
Pay.  Pick up a coke while I'm up?
Pay.  Jumpstart your car?
Fix your collar?
Point out your shoe's untied?
That's right, PAY.
Who needs friends as long as you have money?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423302</id>
	<title>Protect your fish.</title>
	<author>fonitrus</author>
	<datestamp>1268159220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt there is a way of knowing what you ask. That requires clarevoyance. If its present threat most anti viral software or resident shields will know about it.
Just use them and let them run a full system check.
I use TeaTimer that comes with Spybot S&amp;D and never had any permanent problems. Its bit cumbersome on resources but how much is your safety worth vs the advantage of getting an extra 2-5FPS on your favourite game???

Dont feed people fish. Teach them how to protect their fish and not reel in infected fish just because the Sirens offered them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt there is a way of knowing what you ask .
That requires clarevoyance .
If its present threat most anti viral software or resident shields will know about it .
Just use them and let them run a full system check .
I use TeaTimer that comes with Spybot S&amp;D and never had any permanent problems .
Its bit cumbersome on resources but how much is your safety worth vs the advantage of getting an extra 2-5FPS on your favourite game ? ? ?
Dont feed people fish .
Teach them how to protect their fish and not reel in infected fish just because the Sirens offered them .
: ) : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt there is a way of knowing what you ask.
That requires clarevoyance.
If its present threat most anti viral software or resident shields will know about it.
Just use them and let them run a full system check.
I use TeaTimer that comes with Spybot S&amp;D and never had any permanent problems.
Its bit cumbersome on resources but how much is your safety worth vs the advantage of getting an extra 2-5FPS on your favourite game???
Dont feed people fish.
Teach them how to protect their fish and not reel in infected fish just because the Sirens offered them.
:) :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419800</id>
	<title>If it's in the Debian archive it's ok.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1268132100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So my question is, where can you go to find out if something is legitimate?</p><p>"apt-cache search " works for me, though you may prefer aptitude or synaptic.</p><p>You can, of course, trust the Ubuntu archive as well.  Debian-multimedia is ok too, though it is unofficial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So my question is , where can you go to find out if something is legitimate ?
" apt-cache search " works for me , though you may prefer aptitude or synaptic.You can , of course , trust the Ubuntu archive as well .
Debian-multimedia is ok too , though it is unofficial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So my question is, where can you go to find out if something is legitimate?
"apt-cache search " works for me, though you may prefer aptitude or synaptic.You can, of course, trust the Ubuntu archive as well.
Debian-multimedia is ok too, though it is unofficial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420556</id>
	<title>When I'm forced to use Windows...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1268135700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I pretty much stick with <a href="http://www.malwarebytes.org/" title="malwarebytes.org">Malwarebytes</a> [malwarebytes.org], <a href="http://www.ccleaner.com/" title="ccleaner.com">CCleaner</a> [ccleaner.com], <a href="http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html" title="javacoolsoftware.com">SpywareBlaster</a> [javacoolsoftware.com], and <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/Security\_Essentials/" title="microsoft.com">MSE</a> [microsoft.com].</p><p>Actually, I got this tip off another<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. post...researched each (non-MS) application, determined for myself that they were legit, and have not looked back.  In fact, I just spent a few minutes last night eradicating the trojan "Microsoft" Antivirus 2010 on a friend's computer using the Malwarebytes app on a USB.  Worked like a charm.</p><p>But don't take my word for it...do your own evaluation.  I think you'll like what you find.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I pretty much stick with Malwarebytes [ malwarebytes.org ] , CCleaner [ ccleaner.com ] , SpywareBlaster [ javacoolsoftware.com ] , and MSE [ microsoft.com ] .Actually , I got this tip off another / .
post...researched each ( non-MS ) application , determined for myself that they were legit , and have not looked back .
In fact , I just spent a few minutes last night eradicating the trojan " Microsoft " Antivirus 2010 on a friend 's computer using the Malwarebytes app on a USB .
Worked like a charm.But do n't take my word for it...do your own evaluation .
I think you 'll like what you find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I pretty much stick with Malwarebytes [malwarebytes.org], CCleaner [ccleaner.com], SpywareBlaster [javacoolsoftware.com], and MSE [microsoft.com].Actually, I got this tip off another /.
post...researched each (non-MS) application, determined for myself that they were legit, and have not looked back.
In fact, I just spent a few minutes last night eradicating the trojan "Microsoft" Antivirus 2010 on a friend's computer using the Malwarebytes app on a USB.
Worked like a charm.But don't take my word for it...do your own evaluation.
I think you'll like what you find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419736</id>
	<title>Check other sources?</title>
	<author>northernboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268131800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I &gt;need something like a PDF reader, even for Windows, I often go to freshmeat.net first.  There are many more solutions there that are functional in Windows than you might think.</p><p>In this case, I typed "PDF suite" into a Wikipedia search box, and ended up on the Foxit Reader page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxit\_Reader) which contains this sentence:</p><p>"Foxit Phantom PDF Suite is a complete suite of PDF editing and creation software." complete with a link to their web site.</p><p>In general, though, it is not trivial to determine who can be trusted, and to determine where an obscure application came from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I &gt; need something like a PDF reader , even for Windows , I often go to freshmeat.net first .
There are many more solutions there that are functional in Windows than you might think.In this case , I typed " PDF suite " into a Wikipedia search box , and ended up on the Foxit Reader page ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxit \ _Reader ) which contains this sentence : " Foxit Phantom PDF Suite is a complete suite of PDF editing and creation software .
" complete with a link to their web site.In general , though , it is not trivial to determine who can be trusted , and to determine where an obscure application came from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I &gt;need something like a PDF reader, even for Windows, I often go to freshmeat.net first.
There are many more solutions there that are functional in Windows than you might think.In this case, I typed "PDF suite" into a Wikipedia search box, and ended up on the Foxit Reader page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxit\_Reader) which contains this sentence:"Foxit Phantom PDF Suite is a complete suite of PDF editing and creation software.
" complete with a link to their web site.In general, though, it is not trivial to determine who can be trusted, and to determine where an obscure application came from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31422898</id>
	<title>Whoa...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268154420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still on dialup? Don't go out on the Internet; you can be infected with malware just by connecting. No downloads, no browser use, no IM programs running, no email...<i>just being connected</i> will let somebody connect to your PC and exploit security holes. Ditch dialup and connect with something fast enough to get daily antivirus and antimalware updates...you've been warned. I've seen a Windows 2000 Advanced Server running nothing but SAMBA (shared folders) and Exchange get filled with malware like a swiss cheese with nobody running on the desktop (except for occasional reboots and user-account maintenance)...no web browsing, no actual Internet use, just <i>being connected</i> let the malware (MIRC bots, phantom user accounts being added, Mytob worm infections, and LOTS more) into the server. No decent antivirus = not safe at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still on dialup ?
Do n't go out on the Internet ; you can be infected with malware just by connecting .
No downloads , no browser use , no IM programs running , no email...just being connected will let somebody connect to your PC and exploit security holes .
Ditch dialup and connect with something fast enough to get daily antivirus and antimalware updates...you 've been warned .
I 've seen a Windows 2000 Advanced Server running nothing but SAMBA ( shared folders ) and Exchange get filled with malware like a swiss cheese with nobody running on the desktop ( except for occasional reboots and user-account maintenance ) ...no web browsing , no actual Internet use , just being connected let the malware ( MIRC bots , phantom user accounts being added , Mytob worm infections , and LOTS more ) into the server .
No decent antivirus = not safe at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still on dialup?
Don't go out on the Internet; you can be infected with malware just by connecting.
No downloads, no browser use, no IM programs running, no email...just being connected will let somebody connect to your PC and exploit security holes.
Ditch dialup and connect with something fast enough to get daily antivirus and antimalware updates...you've been warned.
I've seen a Windows 2000 Advanced Server running nothing but SAMBA (shared folders) and Exchange get filled with malware like a swiss cheese with nobody running on the desktop (except for occasional reboots and user-account maintenance)...no web browsing, no actual Internet use, just being connected let the malware (MIRC bots, phantom user accounts being added, Mytob worm infections, and LOTS more) into the server.
No decent antivirus = not safe at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418792</id>
	<title>Maintain the USB stick.</title>
	<author>Tackhead</author>
	<datestamp>1268127720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And I don't maintain a USB stick with such apps, since I don't do this kind of thing very often.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
No better time than now to start collecting installer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe files.
</p><p>
The reason you collect the installers (or the portable installations for programs that don't require installers) is because in the Windows world, you never know when a publisher will go rogue.  UsefulUtility 0.8.5 might be great, UsefulUtility 0.8.6 might come with an <em>optional</em> toolbar/crapware that can be deselected at install-time using the "custom" button, and UsefulUtility 0.8.7 might not have the option to delesect the toolbar/crapware.
</p><p>
In that case, UsefulUtility 0.8.5 or UsefulUtility 0.8.6 are the last safe versions (depending on how you define "safe"), and you stop upgrading.  But even if the publisher vanishes from the face of the earth (or puts in gobs of crapware in 0.8.8), you've still got that USB stick with known-trustworthy installers.
</p><p>
The best place to find this sort of information, unfortunately, is by random googling on an app-by-app basis.  UsefulUtility might have user forums, and when they go from 0.8.6 to 0.8.7, its users will be screaming bloody murder.  Or you might come across a thread on one of the larger tech sites that talks about utilities, and when people start looking for replacements for UsefulUtility, you might find a  BetterUtility that does the same thing, only with less bloat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do n't maintain a USB stick with such apps , since I do n't do this kind of thing very often .
No better time than now to start collecting installer .exe files .
The reason you collect the installers ( or the portable installations for programs that do n't require installers ) is because in the Windows world , you never know when a publisher will go rogue .
UsefulUtility 0.8.5 might be great , UsefulUtility 0.8.6 might come with an optional toolbar/crapware that can be deselected at install-time using the " custom " button , and UsefulUtility 0.8.7 might not have the option to delesect the toolbar/crapware .
In that case , UsefulUtility 0.8.5 or UsefulUtility 0.8.6 are the last safe versions ( depending on how you define " safe " ) , and you stop upgrading .
But even if the publisher vanishes from the face of the earth ( or puts in gobs of crapware in 0.8.8 ) , you 've still got that USB stick with known-trustworthy installers .
The best place to find this sort of information , unfortunately , is by random googling on an app-by-app basis .
UsefulUtility might have user forums , and when they go from 0.8.6 to 0.8.7 , its users will be screaming bloody murder .
Or you might come across a thread on one of the larger tech sites that talks about utilities , and when people start looking for replacements for UsefulUtility , you might find a BetterUtility that does the same thing , only with less bloat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I don't maintain a USB stick with such apps, since I don't do this kind of thing very often.
No better time than now to start collecting installer .exe files.
The reason you collect the installers (or the portable installations for programs that don't require installers) is because in the Windows world, you never know when a publisher will go rogue.
UsefulUtility 0.8.5 might be great, UsefulUtility 0.8.6 might come with an optional toolbar/crapware that can be deselected at install-time using the "custom" button, and UsefulUtility 0.8.7 might not have the option to delesect the toolbar/crapware.
In that case, UsefulUtility 0.8.5 or UsefulUtility 0.8.6 are the last safe versions (depending on how you define "safe"), and you stop upgrading.
But even if the publisher vanishes from the face of the earth (or puts in gobs of crapware in 0.8.8), you've still got that USB stick with known-trustworthy installers.
The best place to find this sort of information, unfortunately, is by random googling on an app-by-app basis.
UsefulUtility might have user forums, and when they go from 0.8.6 to 0.8.7, its users will be screaming bloody murder.
Or you might come across a thread on one of the larger tech sites that talks about utilities, and when people start looking for replacements for UsefulUtility, you might find a  BetterUtility that does the same thing, only with less bloat.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420720</id>
	<title>Re:download.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268136480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I check with ninite.com or madgeeklab.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I check with ninite.com or madgeeklab.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I check with ninite.com or madgeeklab.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421432</id>
	<title>Re:Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes availab</title>
	<author>charlieman</author>
	<datestamp>1268141100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compare that to a clueless windows user who hasn't updated anything since he got the computer...<br>Usually people who want the latest version of something is because they need certain functionality it brings. The clueless person will conform with just having the application.</p><p>Default repositories could satisfy the clueless users perfectly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare that to a clueless windows user who has n't updated anything since he got the computer...Usually people who want the latest version of something is because they need certain functionality it brings .
The clueless person will conform with just having the application.Default repositories could satisfy the clueless users perfectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare that to a clueless windows user who hasn't updated anything since he got the computer...Usually people who want the latest version of something is because they need certain functionality it brings.
The clueless person will conform with just having the application.Default repositories could satisfy the clueless users perfectly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421310</id>
	<title>What is "legit" software?</title>
	<author>deblau</author>
	<datestamp>1268140380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you ponder this question for long enough, the answer will come to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ponder this question for long enough , the answer will come to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ponder this question for long enough, the answer will come to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421736</id>
	<title>Not enough bandwidth?  Ehh...</title>
	<author>wealthychef</author>
	<datestamp>1268143320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I call bullshit on the premise.  If the user has bandwidth enough to download malware, he has bandwidth enough to download malware detection software and updates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I call bullshit on the premise .
If the user has bandwidth enough to download malware , he has bandwidth enough to download malware detection software and updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call bullshit on the premise.
If the user has bandwidth enough to download malware, he has bandwidth enough to download malware detection software and updates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419066</id>
	<title>How important is this person to you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268128980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this person is important to you (ie, a relative, family friend), then set up a CD-R with A/V and malware detection on it such that it autoruns, and mail them a new, fresh copy once per month that includes the latest A/V definitions.  Hell, include a defrag as part of the autorun process.  What does this person do for updates to Windows?  I'm betting nothing.  Include those too.</p><p>90\% of maintaining my computer semi-literate parents' and relatives' computers is basically this: (1) update antivirus, (2) run A/V, (3) update Windows, (4) defrag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this person is important to you ( ie , a relative , family friend ) , then set up a CD-R with A/V and malware detection on it such that it autoruns , and mail them a new , fresh copy once per month that includes the latest A/V definitions .
Hell , include a defrag as part of the autorun process .
What does this person do for updates to Windows ?
I 'm betting nothing .
Include those too.90 \ % of maintaining my computer semi-literate parents ' and relatives ' computers is basically this : ( 1 ) update antivirus , ( 2 ) run A/V , ( 3 ) update Windows , ( 4 ) defrag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this person is important to you (ie, a relative, family friend), then set up a CD-R with A/V and malware detection on it such that it autoruns, and mail them a new, fresh copy once per month that includes the latest A/V definitions.
Hell, include a defrag as part of the autorun process.
What does this person do for updates to Windows?
I'm betting nothing.
Include those too.90\% of maintaining my computer semi-literate parents' and relatives' computers is basically this: (1) update antivirus, (2) run A/V, (3) update Windows, (4) defrag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418666</id>
	<title>how about google?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ummm, first hit on google for PDF Suite.</p><p>http://www.pdf-suite.com/</p><p>Looks legit to me...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ummm , first hit on google for PDF Suite.http : //www.pdf-suite.com/Looks legit to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ummm, first hit on google for PDF Suite.http://www.pdf-suite.com/Looks legit to me...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419034</id>
	<title>Re:Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes availab</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1268128860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990's way of installing software. Its hard to believe Windows users don't have App repositories yet.</p></div><p>I haven't spent any time looking, but is there possibly a nice cross platform (Win/Lin/Mac) solution for an application developer to stick on his web server and give everyone a link to add that to their package manager of choice?  That or some kind of uniform repository "tag" of sorts.  This would be something that would contain the developer's repository information and all repository clients could understand how to read it and/or know if they support it.</p><p>It definitely would be cool (and avoid silly one click installs) if an indie developer distributing their application could just give their users a link and post their latest version(s) to that application so anyone can keep up to date with the latest version.  I have a feeling such a system doesn't exist and people would get all strung up arguing how to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990 's way of installing software .
Its hard to believe Windows users do n't have App repositories yet.I have n't spent any time looking , but is there possibly a nice cross platform ( Win/Lin/Mac ) solution for an application developer to stick on his web server and give everyone a link to add that to their package manager of choice ?
That or some kind of uniform repository " tag " of sorts .
This would be something that would contain the developer 's repository information and all repository clients could understand how to read it and/or know if they support it.It definitely would be cool ( and avoid silly one click installs ) if an indie developer distributing their application could just give their users a link and post their latest version ( s ) to that application so anyone can keep up to date with the latest version .
I have a feeling such a system does n't exist and people would get all strung up arguing how to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990's way of installing software.
Its hard to believe Windows users don't have App repositories yet.I haven't spent any time looking, but is there possibly a nice cross platform (Win/Lin/Mac) solution for an application developer to stick on his web server and give everyone a link to add that to their package manager of choice?
That or some kind of uniform repository "tag" of sorts.
This would be something that would contain the developer's repository information and all repository clients could understand how to read it and/or know if they support it.It definitely would be cool (and avoid silly one click installs) if an indie developer distributing their application could just give their users a link and post their latest version(s) to that application so anyone can keep up to date with the latest version.
I have a feeling such a system doesn't exist and people would get all strung up arguing how to do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31422344</id>
	<title>Today I got the BSOD for ha20x2k.sys</title>
	<author>KPexEA</author>
	<datestamp>1268149440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as I saw the filename it looked very suspicious but alas it's a known bug in a sound driver.
That being said, I wonder how many viruses are hiding using the filenames of known buggy drivers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as I saw the filename it looked very suspicious but alas it 's a known bug in a sound driver .
That being said , I wonder how many viruses are hiding using the filenames of known buggy drivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as I saw the filename it looked very suspicious but alas it's a known bug in a sound driver.
That being said, I wonder how many viruses are hiding using the filenames of known buggy drivers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423456</id>
	<title>Re:beware!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268162220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One solutuion would have been for the ZDNet to supply the checksum for their presumably mallware free copies. If they wouldn't have approved this, one must assune they would have been part of the virus-ring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One solutuion would have been for the ZDNet to supply the checksum for their presumably mallware free copies .
If they would n't have approved this , one must assune they would have been part of the virus-ring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One solutuion would have been for the ZDNet to supply the checksum for their presumably mallware free copies.
If they wouldn't have approved this, one must assune they would have been part of the virus-ring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423704</id>
	<title>Re:Assume malware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268253360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software comes from a source. The question is whether you trust that source.</p><p>So look them up. Do they have a real phone number? Call it. Do they have a real address? Check it out via Google Street view. Have they got an SSL certificate? Those have to be verified you know (there are varying levels of verification though, so check out the certifying authority for details).</p><p>Software that comes from verifiably real people or companies tends to be legit. Malware tends to come from anonymous scumbags for obvious reasons.</p><p>(and yes there are exceptions to these rules of thumb)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software comes from a source .
The question is whether you trust that source.So look them up .
Do they have a real phone number ?
Call it .
Do they have a real address ?
Check it out via Google Street view .
Have they got an SSL certificate ?
Those have to be verified you know ( there are varying levels of verification though , so check out the certifying authority for details ) .Software that comes from verifiably real people or companies tends to be legit .
Malware tends to come from anonymous scumbags for obvious reasons .
( and yes there are exceptions to these rules of thumb )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software comes from a source.
The question is whether you trust that source.So look them up.
Do they have a real phone number?
Call it.
Do they have a real address?
Check it out via Google Street view.
Have they got an SSL certificate?
Those have to be verified you know (there are varying levels of verification though, so check out the certifying authority for details).Software that comes from verifiably real people or companies tends to be legit.
Malware tends to come from anonymous scumbags for obvious reasons.
(and yes there are exceptions to these rules of thumb)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419416</id>
	<title>Re:download.com</title>
	<author>Kurrel</author>
	<datestamp>1268130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By testing it in a sandbox, of course! Here's a super-nifty free binary analyzer that runs in your browser:

<a href="http://anubis.iseclab.org/" title="iseclab.org" rel="nofollow">http://anubis.iseclab.org/</a> [iseclab.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>By testing it in a sandbox , of course !
Here 's a super-nifty free binary analyzer that runs in your browser : http : //anubis.iseclab.org/ [ iseclab.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By testing it in a sandbox, of course!
Here's a super-nifty free binary analyzer that runs in your browser:

http://anubis.iseclab.org/ [iseclab.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419452</id>
	<title>Live CD</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1268130600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, today, on dialup, the best you can do is run an up to date live cd that has a range of apps on it, suitable for most purposes, and drop the few bucks every few months to get an updated version snail mailed to you from one of the disk burner companies. Knoppix, ubuntu, whatever, one of those live versions.</p><p>
&nbsp; Get a few different ones to start, see which works the best, then stick with that one if you can. I was on dialup until last year and actually had two different isps give me grief over being online excessively, and dang if it wasn't just trying to keep up to date with patches overnight in a lot of cases. Trying to patch plus surf at the same time made both near unusable, dialup really can't handle that well, so I did the "do it over night" deal, which lead to excessive hours online. Note, the cheaper "bargain" dialup providers gave me the grief, then I went with the large nationwide one sorta sounds like planet chains, which is full price, and never no grief from them. FWIW. Still took a long time though, and was a PITA for patches and updates. And forget full distro upgrades, that was just nuts to try and do that.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Modern web pages are designed for broadband for the most part. No way around it anymore, so for those stuck on dialup with no broadband on the horizon for another few decades, like still huge areas of the US, it's live CDs if they want to go online. Keep an old rat box with windows on it that isn't connected to the net *ever* never, ever, ever to play games if you must.   Modern OSes and apps need frequent patching, and it takes a long time to do this on dialup, so just run the best live CD you can and be done with it. Not worry so much about malwarez then, just reboot for a clean new install every time, and make sure to keep images turned off for the most part, and run noscript and adblocker to also help with the security and to give you a fighting chance of viewing a web page under two minutes load time.  That's the best I could come up with as a workable compromise being stuck on dialup from 95 until 09.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , today , on dialup , the best you can do is run an up to date live cd that has a range of apps on it , suitable for most purposes , and drop the few bucks every few months to get an updated version snail mailed to you from one of the disk burner companies .
Knoppix , ubuntu , whatever , one of those live versions .
  Get a few different ones to start , see which works the best , then stick with that one if you can .
I was on dialup until last year and actually had two different isps give me grief over being online excessively , and dang if it was n't just trying to keep up to date with patches overnight in a lot of cases .
Trying to patch plus surf at the same time made both near unusable , dialup really ca n't handle that well , so I did the " do it over night " deal , which lead to excessive hours online .
Note , the cheaper " bargain " dialup providers gave me the grief , then I went with the large nationwide one sorta sounds like planet chains , which is full price , and never no grief from them .
FWIW. Still took a long time though , and was a PITA for patches and updates .
And forget full distro upgrades , that was just nuts to try and do that .
    Modern web pages are designed for broadband for the most part .
No way around it anymore , so for those stuck on dialup with no broadband on the horizon for another few decades , like still huge areas of the US , it 's live CDs if they want to go online .
Keep an old rat box with windows on it that is n't connected to the net * ever * never , ever , ever to play games if you must .
Modern OSes and apps need frequent patching , and it takes a long time to do this on dialup , so just run the best live CD you can and be done with it .
Not worry so much about malwarez then , just reboot for a clean new install every time , and make sure to keep images turned off for the most part , and run noscript and adblocker to also help with the security and to give you a fighting chance of viewing a web page under two minutes load time .
That 's the best I could come up with as a workable compromise being stuck on dialup from 95 until 09 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, today, on dialup, the best you can do is run an up to date live cd that has a range of apps on it, suitable for most purposes, and drop the few bucks every few months to get an updated version snail mailed to you from one of the disk burner companies.
Knoppix, ubuntu, whatever, one of those live versions.
  Get a few different ones to start, see which works the best, then stick with that one if you can.
I was on dialup until last year and actually had two different isps give me grief over being online excessively, and dang if it wasn't just trying to keep up to date with patches overnight in a lot of cases.
Trying to patch plus surf at the same time made both near unusable, dialup really can't handle that well, so I did the "do it over night" deal, which lead to excessive hours online.
Note, the cheaper "bargain" dialup providers gave me the grief, then I went with the large nationwide one sorta sounds like planet chains, which is full price, and never no grief from them.
FWIW. Still took a long time though, and was a PITA for patches and updates.
And forget full distro upgrades, that was just nuts to try and do that.
    Modern web pages are designed for broadband for the most part.
No way around it anymore, so for those stuck on dialup with no broadband on the horizon for another few decades, like still huge areas of the US, it's live CDs if they want to go online.
Keep an old rat box with windows on it that isn't connected to the net *ever* never, ever, ever to play games if you must.
Modern OSes and apps need frequent patching, and it takes a long time to do this on dialup, so just run the best live CD you can and be done with it.
Not worry so much about malwarez then, just reboot for a clean new install every time, and make sure to keep images turned off for the most part, and run noscript and adblocker to also help with the security and to give you a fighting chance of viewing a web page under two minutes load time.
That's the best I could come up with as a workable compromise being stuck on dialup from 95 until 09.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419506</id>
	<title>Re:"to big to download"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268130840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PDF Suite appears to be legitimate software, at only 2.6 MB, it's smaller than Adobe Reader, and far smaller than most anti-virus/spyware.<br>Back when I had dial-up 10MB was probably the biggest thing I ever downloaded, an intermittent connection that cost me per-minute certainly wasn't suitable for downloading files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PDF Suite appears to be legitimate software , at only 2.6 MB , it 's smaller than Adobe Reader , and far smaller than most anti-virus/spyware.Back when I had dial-up 10MB was probably the biggest thing I ever downloaded , an intermittent connection that cost me per-minute certainly was n't suitable for downloading files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PDF Suite appears to be legitimate software, at only 2.6 MB, it's smaller than Adobe Reader, and far smaller than most anti-virus/spyware.Back when I had dial-up 10MB was probably the biggest thing I ever downloaded, an intermittent connection that cost me per-minute certainly wasn't suitable for downloading files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420152</id>
	<title>Re:Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes availab</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268133840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Latest version not in the repositories? No problem! Just svn/git from the developers server the tagged version, preferably on command line, read both README and INSTALL, run<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./configure --prefix=/it/goes/here --whatnot=yes --even-more-arguments=yes.<br>After this you realize that you need to get the dependency packages either from the repositories or by the perfectly sane method of svn/git and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./configure &amp;&amp; make &amp;&amp; make install.</p><p>Now at this point you can return to the original source code and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./configure &amp;&amp; make &amp;&amp; make install.</p><p>If anything fails just go trough a pile of mailing-list archives and you might find how it should be done.</p><p>You now have the application that was outdated on your repositories at a newer version and as an added bonus you just polluted by accident both<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr and possibly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lib by not knowing what you are doing.</p><p>But hey, you can always reinstall ubuntu from scratch. With any luck you actually saved your home folder and a snapshot of installed packages in a text file so you can get it up to almost the same as before you trashed it.</p><p>Easy as cake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Latest version not in the repositories ?
No problem !
Just svn/git from the developers server the tagged version , preferably on command line , read both README and INSTALL , run ./configure --prefix = /it/goes/here --whatnot = yes --even-more-arguments = yes.After this you realize that you need to get the dependency packages either from the repositories or by the perfectly sane method of svn/git and ./configure &amp;&amp; make &amp;&amp; make install.Now at this point you can return to the original source code and ./configure &amp;&amp; make &amp;&amp; make install.If anything fails just go trough a pile of mailing-list archives and you might find how it should be done.You now have the application that was outdated on your repositories at a newer version and as an added bonus you just polluted by accident both /usr and possibly /lib by not knowing what you are doing.But hey , you can always reinstall ubuntu from scratch .
With any luck you actually saved your home folder and a snapshot of installed packages in a text file so you can get it up to almost the same as before you trashed it.Easy as cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Latest version not in the repositories?
No problem!
Just svn/git from the developers server the tagged version, preferably on command line, read both README and INSTALL, run ./configure --prefix=/it/goes/here --whatnot=yes --even-more-arguments=yes.After this you realize that you need to get the dependency packages either from the repositories or by the perfectly sane method of svn/git and ./configure &amp;&amp; make &amp;&amp; make install.Now at this point you can return to the original source code and ./configure &amp;&amp; make &amp;&amp; make install.If anything fails just go trough a pile of mailing-list archives and you might find how it should be done.You now have the application that was outdated on your repositories at a newer version and as an added bonus you just polluted by accident both /usr and possibly /lib by not knowing what you are doing.But hey, you can always reinstall ubuntu from scratch.
With any luck you actually saved your home folder and a snapshot of installed packages in a text file so you can get it up to almost the same as before you trashed it.Easy as cake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419822</id>
	<title>Re:Why are you doing this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268132220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WILL FIX YOUR COMPz FOR SEX</htmltext>
<tokenext>WILL FIX YOUR COMPz FOR SEX</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WILL FIX YOUR COMPz FOR SEX</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423222</id>
	<title>sourceforge.net, then nonags.com</title>
	<author>WoTG</author>
	<datestamp>1268158260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel sorry for non-geek computer users. It really is tough to tell what is safe software and what isn't.</p><p>Personally, I would check sourceforge.net first for an open source equivalent.  I'm not an open source zealot, but OSS tends to be malware free, and the bonus is that I can freely give a copy to other people. When that fails nonags.com is where I go.  They test for naggy shareware, and I think malware and viruses.</p><p>Outside of that?  Who knows.  I trust my gut based on the website, or I run it in a virtual machine! But other people just don't have that option.  Even using Google for the software product + "review" will get you fake affiliate reviews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel sorry for non-geek computer users .
It really is tough to tell what is safe software and what is n't.Personally , I would check sourceforge.net first for an open source equivalent .
I 'm not an open source zealot , but OSS tends to be malware free , and the bonus is that I can freely give a copy to other people .
When that fails nonags.com is where I go .
They test for naggy shareware , and I think malware and viruses.Outside of that ?
Who knows .
I trust my gut based on the website , or I run it in a virtual machine !
But other people just do n't have that option .
Even using Google for the software product + " review " will get you fake affiliate reviews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel sorry for non-geek computer users.
It really is tough to tell what is safe software and what isn't.Personally, I would check sourceforge.net first for an open source equivalent.
I'm not an open source zealot, but OSS tends to be malware free, and the bonus is that I can freely give a copy to other people.
When that fails nonags.com is where I go.
They test for naggy shareware, and I think malware and viruses.Outside of that?
Who knows.
I trust my gut based on the website, or I run it in a virtual machine!
But other people just don't have that option.
Even using Google for the software product + "review" will get you fake affiliate reviews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421364</id>
	<title>Re:Er</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1268140800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Did you try Googling it *without* the word malware?</p><p> <a href="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=\%22PDF+Suite\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g10&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;fp=1" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=\%22PDF+Suite\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g10&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;fp=1</a> [google.com] </p></div><p>I'm pretty sure he meant "Nothing claiming it was malware turned up."</p><p>Not just that he was unable to find the software's source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you try Googling it * without * the word malware ?
http : //www.google.com/ # hl = en&amp;source = hp&amp;q = \ % 22PDF + Suite \ % 22&amp;aq = f&amp;aqi = g10&amp;aql = &amp;oq = &amp;fp = 1 [ google.com ] I 'm pretty sure he meant " Nothing claiming it was malware turned up .
" Not just that he was unable to find the software 's source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you try Googling it *without* the word malware?
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=\%22PDF+Suite\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g10&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;fp=1 [google.com] I'm pretty sure he meant "Nothing claiming it was malware turned up.
"Not just that he was unable to find the software's source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31439598</id>
	<title>Like a 14-year old girl...</title>
	<author>Securityemo</author>
	<datestamp>1268329500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...dumped in the bad end of a red light district. That's about how easy it is for users to learn how to judge such things for themselves. You may think they are just idiots, but try to ponder how many factors really go into determining the suspiciousness of data/apps/sites on the web; it's more factors than the simple gut feeling would suggest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...dumped in the bad end of a red light district .
That 's about how easy it is for users to learn how to judge such things for themselves .
You may think they are just idiots , but try to ponder how many factors really go into determining the suspiciousness of data/apps/sites on the web ; it 's more factors than the simple gut feeling would suggest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...dumped in the bad end of a red light district.
That's about how easy it is for users to learn how to judge such things for themselves.
You may think they are just idiots, but try to ponder how many factors really go into determining the suspiciousness of data/apps/sites on the web; it's more factors than the simple gut feeling would suggest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420240</id>
	<title>Simple - only use apps that cost over $100 each</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268134200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they don't have time to keep AV updated and they run Windows, they need to pay for every app they use.  There are no 100\% trustworthy free apps, just ask Microsoft.  In fact, they should only use paid Microsoft apps.</p><p>The good news is since they aren't really using the Internet, they don't need to patch anything either.</p><p>BTW, my sister, who is also on dialup asked a similar question over Xmas. I told her there was no answer that she'd like. Sorry.  The best answer I could give her was to only use Linux when online. She rejected my solution. OTOH, I refuse to provide computer support to MS-Windows users in my family, except Mom. I figure I owe her.  I'm gonna switch her to Linux on my next visit, tho.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't have time to keep AV updated and they run Windows , they need to pay for every app they use .
There are no 100 \ % trustworthy free apps , just ask Microsoft .
In fact , they should only use paid Microsoft apps.The good news is since they are n't really using the Internet , they do n't need to patch anything either.BTW , my sister , who is also on dialup asked a similar question over Xmas .
I told her there was no answer that she 'd like .
Sorry. The best answer I could give her was to only use Linux when online .
She rejected my solution .
OTOH , I refuse to provide computer support to MS-Windows users in my family , except Mom .
I figure I owe her .
I 'm gon na switch her to Linux on my next visit , tho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't have time to keep AV updated and they run Windows, they need to pay for every app they use.
There are no 100\% trustworthy free apps, just ask Microsoft.
In fact, they should only use paid Microsoft apps.The good news is since they aren't really using the Internet, they don't need to patch anything either.BTW, my sister, who is also on dialup asked a similar question over Xmas.
I told her there was no answer that she'd like.
Sorry.  The best answer I could give her was to only use Linux when online.
She rejected my solution.
OTOH, I refuse to provide computer support to MS-Windows users in my family, except Mom.
I figure I owe her.
I'm gonna switch her to Linux on my next visit, tho.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31422820</id>
	<title>USB stick?</title>
	<author>gumpish</author>
	<datestamp>1268153700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>USB stick?</p><p>What's that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>USB stick ? What 's that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USB stick?What's that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420634</id>
	<title>Easy peasy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268136060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't find it at packages.debian.org, it ain't worth the trouble.<br>No, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't find it at packages.debian.org , it ai n't worth the trouble.No , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't find it at packages.debian.org, it ain't worth the trouble.No, really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31426804</id>
	<title>Re:Er</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1268239560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well *I* was aiming for (barely) funny, so your beef is with the mods.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well * I * was aiming for ( barely ) funny , so your beef is with the mods .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well *I* was aiming for (barely) funny, so your beef is with the mods.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419424</id>
	<title>Upload to virustotal.com</title>
	<author>drewhk</author>
	<datestamp>1268130480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It scans the file with several virus scanners and returns the result. Not 100\%, but quite useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It scans the file with several virus scanners and returns the result .
Not 100 \ % , but quite useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It scans the file with several virus scanners and returns the result.
Not 100\%, but quite useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419032</id>
	<title>Re:download.com</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1268128860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That might work if the application is infected by (known) malware.  What if the application is <i>itself</i> the trojan, perhaps one that activates in the future so no one would have reported it yet?  Unless someone has access to the source code and the time and inclination to look through it, how do you know it's safe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That might work if the application is infected by ( known ) malware .
What if the application is itself the trojan , perhaps one that activates in the future so no one would have reported it yet ?
Unless someone has access to the source code and the time and inclination to look through it , how do you know it 's safe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That might work if the application is infected by (known) malware.
What if the application is itself the trojan, perhaps one that activates in the future so no one would have reported it yet?
Unless someone has access to the source code and the time and inclination to look through it, how do you know it's safe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419840</id>
	<title>Re:Assume malware</title>
	<author>Miseph</author>
	<datestamp>1268132280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree that it has some problems, I still think that's the best solution.</p><p>One idea would even be creating the framework such that when a program is installed, it adds the appropriate update repository and is updated through the interface, but not by Microsoft, or even with their direct corporate consent.</p><p>Yes, this might kill InstallShield, but who honestly cares? Nobody seems to be griping at the destruction of the floppy disk drive market, what's so magical about the application installation and update management software market?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that it has some problems , I still think that 's the best solution.One idea would even be creating the framework such that when a program is installed , it adds the appropriate update repository and is updated through the interface , but not by Microsoft , or even with their direct corporate consent.Yes , this might kill InstallShield , but who honestly cares ?
Nobody seems to be griping at the destruction of the floppy disk drive market , what 's so magical about the application installation and update management software market ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that it has some problems, I still think that's the best solution.One idea would even be creating the framework such that when a program is installed, it adds the appropriate update repository and is updated through the interface, but not by Microsoft, or even with their direct corporate consent.Yes, this might kill InstallShield, but who honestly cares?
Nobody seems to be griping at the destruction of the floppy disk drive market, what's so magical about the application installation and update management software market?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850</id>
	<title>Why are you doing this?</title>
	<author>realmolo</author>
	<datestamp>1268128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Helping someone try and fix their computer is an exercise in futility, even if you are getting paid for it. Are you getting paid? And if not, why not? And if so, why are you trying to do this over the phone?</p><p>Tell the person that they need to pay you to fix their computer (even if they need to ship it to you). Anything else is a waste of your time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Helping someone try and fix their computer is an exercise in futility , even if you are getting paid for it .
Are you getting paid ?
And if not , why not ?
And if so , why are you trying to do this over the phone ? Tell the person that they need to pay you to fix their computer ( even if they need to ship it to you ) .
Anything else is a waste of your time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Helping someone try and fix their computer is an exercise in futility, even if you are getting paid for it.
Are you getting paid?
And if not, why not?
And if so, why are you trying to do this over the phone?Tell the person that they need to pay you to fix their computer (even if they need to ship it to you).
Anything else is a waste of your time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418828</id>
	<title>repos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's legit it's in your repos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's legit it 's in your repos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's legit it's in your repos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418986</id>
	<title>Google.com</title>
	<author>Kylow</author>
	<datestamp>1268128680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best resource is still Google.  You will need to be a little more patient and a little more competent with your search terms, however.  Or you could just write in to Ask Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best resource is still Google .
You will need to be a little more patient and a little more competent with your search terms , however .
Or you could just write in to Ask Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best resource is still Google.
You will need to be a little more patient and a little more competent with your search terms, however.
Or you could just write in to Ask Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419144</id>
	<title>Re:Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes availab</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1268129340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990's way of installing software. Its hard to believe Windows users don't have App repositories yet.</p></div><p>How is that any less worse than having to dig up third-party repositories or searching the internet for packages to install software that isn't in your OS's repository?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990 's way of installing software .
Its hard to believe Windows users do n't have App repositories yet.How is that any less worse than having to dig up third-party repositories or searching the internet for packages to install software that is n't in your OS 's repository ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990's way of installing software.
Its hard to believe Windows users don't have App repositories yet.How is that any less worse than having to dig up third-party repositories or searching the internet for packages to install software that isn't in your OS's repository?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419354</id>
	<title>Take the computer home with you</title>
	<author>generalhavok</author>
	<datestamp>1268130180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do this all the time.  I live in a rural area where some people still have dial-up.  They get infected.  I'm known as the computer geek, so they call me.  I either go to their house, confirm that it's malware, etc, and then take the computer home with me, where I have broadband, my big box of tools, spare parts, etc, and work on it there, or just have them drop it off.  I'll then either download what I need to clean the system, or I'll just completely re-install it for them.  It's nice doing it from the comfort of my home.  I can let it install or run scans while I work on other things.  When it's done, I call them up, or go deliver it.  And I get paid.  Imagine that.
I find that trying to work over dial-up is impossible, or a huge waste of my time, when it's much quicker to drive to my house than to wait for something to download.  Also, trying to talk users through things over the phone, especially when they are on dial-up or hampered by a slow, infected computer, is an even bigger waste of time!  So, even if you love this person, and want to just do it as a favor, then do yourself a favor, and take the computer somewhere where you have the proper tools, a good connection, and can do it at your leisure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do this all the time .
I live in a rural area where some people still have dial-up .
They get infected .
I 'm known as the computer geek , so they call me .
I either go to their house , confirm that it 's malware , etc , and then take the computer home with me , where I have broadband , my big box of tools , spare parts , etc , and work on it there , or just have them drop it off .
I 'll then either download what I need to clean the system , or I 'll just completely re-install it for them .
It 's nice doing it from the comfort of my home .
I can let it install or run scans while I work on other things .
When it 's done , I call them up , or go deliver it .
And I get paid .
Imagine that .
I find that trying to work over dial-up is impossible , or a huge waste of my time , when it 's much quicker to drive to my house than to wait for something to download .
Also , trying to talk users through things over the phone , especially when they are on dial-up or hampered by a slow , infected computer , is an even bigger waste of time !
So , even if you love this person , and want to just do it as a favor , then do yourself a favor , and take the computer somewhere where you have the proper tools , a good connection , and can do it at your leisure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do this all the time.
I live in a rural area where some people still have dial-up.
They get infected.
I'm known as the computer geek, so they call me.
I either go to their house, confirm that it's malware, etc, and then take the computer home with me, where I have broadband, my big box of tools, spare parts, etc, and work on it there, or just have them drop it off.
I'll then either download what I need to clean the system, or I'll just completely re-install it for them.
It's nice doing it from the comfort of my home.
I can let it install or run scans while I work on other things.
When it's done, I call them up, or go deliver it.
And I get paid.
Imagine that.
I find that trying to work over dial-up is impossible, or a huge waste of my time, when it's much quicker to drive to my house than to wait for something to download.
Also, trying to talk users through things over the phone, especially when they are on dial-up or hampered by a slow, infected computer, is an even bigger waste of time!
So, even if you love this person, and want to just do it as a favor, then do yourself a favor, and take the computer somewhere where you have the proper tools, a good connection, and can do it at your leisure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420114</id>
	<title>Trust NewEgg</title>
	<author>gksmith</author>
	<datestamp>1268133720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just tell them to buy their software from NewEgg.com, that company would never let any malware pass to the consumer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just tell them to buy their software from NewEgg.com , that company would never let any malware pass to the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just tell them to buy their software from NewEgg.com, that company would never let any malware pass to the consumer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31424034</id>
	<title>Re:"to big to download"</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1268214300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is too heavy to download and install malware detection utilities over dial-up, I'm guessing they have no virus protection at all and are running unpatched versions of windows.  This is fundamentally unsafe, and needs to be rectified immediately.  They need to either deal with leaving their phone tied up for an hour a week running updates, or they need to get satellite internet access.</p><p>To the original poster, it's frequently more effective to find malware information by searching for the process name than by the application name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is too heavy to download and install malware detection utilities over dial-up , I 'm guessing they have no virus protection at all and are running unpatched versions of windows .
This is fundamentally unsafe , and needs to be rectified immediately .
They need to either deal with leaving their phone tied up for an hour a week running updates , or they need to get satellite internet access.To the original poster , it 's frequently more effective to find malware information by searching for the process name than by the application name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is too heavy to download and install malware detection utilities over dial-up, I'm guessing they have no virus protection at all and are running unpatched versions of windows.
This is fundamentally unsafe, and needs to be rectified immediately.
They need to either deal with leaving their phone tied up for an hour a week running updates, or they need to get satellite internet access.To the original poster, it's frequently more effective to find malware information by searching for the process name than by the application name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419586</id>
	<title>Re:Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes availab</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1268131200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Signed hashes only assure you of the source of the files. They don't in themselves provide any assurance of trust.</i></p><p><i>In the majority of these cases, the only thing it would achieve would be that you can state with some confidence that it's definitely the fault of a particular asshat.</i></p><p>How don't they provide provide assurance of trust?</p><p>If you trust Vendor A, and you install Vendor A's repo, then the number of things to worry about has just been sharply reduced, because you can reasonably trust that packages signed by Vendor A's repo do, in fact, come from Vendor A.</p><p>I think what you meant to say is that hashes only assure that the files came from a specific vendor, and that's self-evident. It's like saying that water is wet.</p><p>You don't see how this is a dramtic net improvement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Signed hashes only assure you of the source of the files .
They do n't in themselves provide any assurance of trust.In the majority of these cases , the only thing it would achieve would be that you can state with some confidence that it 's definitely the fault of a particular asshat.How do n't they provide provide assurance of trust ? If you trust Vendor A , and you install Vendor A 's repo , then the number of things to worry about has just been sharply reduced , because you can reasonably trust that packages signed by Vendor A 's repo do , in fact , come from Vendor A.I think what you meant to say is that hashes only assure that the files came from a specific vendor , and that 's self-evident .
It 's like saying that water is wet.You do n't see how this is a dramtic net improvement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Signed hashes only assure you of the source of the files.
They don't in themselves provide any assurance of trust.In the majority of these cases, the only thing it would achieve would be that you can state with some confidence that it's definitely the fault of a particular asshat.How don't they provide provide assurance of trust?If you trust Vendor A, and you install Vendor A's repo, then the number of things to worry about has just been sharply reduced, because you can reasonably trust that packages signed by Vendor A's repo do, in fact, come from Vendor A.I think what you meant to say is that hashes only assure that the files came from a specific vendor, and that's self-evident.
It's like saying that water is wet.You don't see how this is a dramtic net improvement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31422158</id>
	<title>McAfee SiteAdvisor plugin for Firefox</title>
	<author>d\_54321</author>
	<datestamp>1268147100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>McAfee SiteAdvisor plugin for Firefox</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>McAfee SiteAdvisor plugin for Firefox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McAfee SiteAdvisor plugin for Firefox</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419298</id>
	<title>beware!</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1268129940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BitTornado, an application I administer, was once available via ZDNet, a site which distributed freeware and shareware apps much like Download.com.  At some point someone began offering download mirrors for BitTornado and other apps, with installers that were modified and apparently contaminated with malware.  I complained twice; the second time, they nastily asked whether I wanted them to remove BitTornado from their site.  I told them yes.</p><p>Just because software is available via some popular gateway, you can't be 100\% certain what you download will be perfect and free from malware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BitTornado , an application I administer , was once available via ZDNet , a site which distributed freeware and shareware apps much like Download.com .
At some point someone began offering download mirrors for BitTornado and other apps , with installers that were modified and apparently contaminated with malware .
I complained twice ; the second time , they nastily asked whether I wanted them to remove BitTornado from their site .
I told them yes.Just because software is available via some popular gateway , you ca n't be 100 \ % certain what you download will be perfect and free from malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BitTornado, an application I administer, was once available via ZDNet, a site which distributed freeware and shareware apps much like Download.com.
At some point someone began offering download mirrors for BitTornado and other apps, with installers that were modified and apparently contaminated with malware.
I complained twice; the second time, they nastily asked whether I wanted them to remove BitTornado from their site.
I told them yes.Just because software is available via some popular gateway, you can't be 100\% certain what you download will be perfect and free from malware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421318</id>
	<title>Re:download.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268140440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same way you know your Linux kernel isn't back-doored, by getting the source and reviewing it line by line.  Now where is that main function, I've got some work to do!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same way you know your Linux kernel is n't back-doored , by getting the source and reviewing it line by line .
Now where is that main function , I 've got some work to do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same way you know your Linux kernel isn't back-doored, by getting the source and reviewing it line by line.
Now where is that main function, I've got some work to do!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31424536</id>
	<title>Re:How important is this person to you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268222040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, no.  A person on dial up does not need windows updates.  (For that matter neither does anyone else as long at they are behind one layer of NAT.)  Run XP SP 2 along with your generously provided AV updates, and they will be fine.  On XP32, all the updates after SP2 are there to slow the computer down so Vista/7 doesn't look so pokey.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , no .
A person on dial up does not need windows updates .
( For that matter neither does anyone else as long at they are behind one layer of NAT .
) Run XP SP 2 along with your generously provided AV updates , and they will be fine .
On XP32 , all the updates after SP2 are there to slow the computer down so Vista/7 does n't look so pokey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, no.
A person on dial up does not need windows updates.
(For that matter neither does anyone else as long at they are behind one layer of NAT.
)  Run XP SP 2 along with your generously provided AV updates, and they will be fine.
On XP32, all the updates after SP2 are there to slow the computer down so Vista/7 doesn't look so pokey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420140</id>
	<title>If the app is open source, the chance of spyware..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268133840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me if the app is open source, then the chances of spyware are slim. I know literally handfull of opensource applications that contained malicious stuff, and each time it happens, it is widely publicized (PDF Creator as an example). Other source - check if wikipedia mentions anything about the software.</p><p>I dont think any antivirus or antispyware program would be good to scan software, when the software itself is unique spyware.</p><p>One other example of software I don't like is stuff made by google. Google.com is great website but I trust it only when i open it with firefox. stuff like picassa or google toolbar which sends ton of info back to google servers is not something i can tolerate on my pc.</p><p>One other option would be switching to system like ubuntu - then spyware would not be a concern anymore (I'm seriously considering switching after using windows 7 for a bit. going back to xp is not an option as my pc has more than 4gb of ram and i want it used)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me if the app is open source , then the chances of spyware are slim .
I know literally handfull of opensource applications that contained malicious stuff , and each time it happens , it is widely publicized ( PDF Creator as an example ) .
Other source - check if wikipedia mentions anything about the software.I dont think any antivirus or antispyware program would be good to scan software , when the software itself is unique spyware.One other example of software I do n't like is stuff made by google .
Google.com is great website but I trust it only when i open it with firefox .
stuff like picassa or google toolbar which sends ton of info back to google servers is not something i can tolerate on my pc.One other option would be switching to system like ubuntu - then spyware would not be a concern anymore ( I 'm seriously considering switching after using windows 7 for a bit .
going back to xp is not an option as my pc has more than 4gb of ram and i want it used )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me if the app is open source, then the chances of spyware are slim.
I know literally handfull of opensource applications that contained malicious stuff, and each time it happens, it is widely publicized (PDF Creator as an example).
Other source - check if wikipedia mentions anything about the software.I dont think any antivirus or antispyware program would be good to scan software, when the software itself is unique spyware.One other example of software I don't like is stuff made by google.
Google.com is great website but I trust it only when i open it with firefox.
stuff like picassa or google toolbar which sends ton of info back to google servers is not something i can tolerate on my pc.One other option would be switching to system like ubuntu - then spyware would not be a concern anymore (I'm seriously considering switching after using windows 7 for a bit.
going back to xp is not an option as my pc has more than 4gb of ram and i want it used)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418814</id>
	<title>Er</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1268127900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you try Googling it *without* the word malware?</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=\%22PDF+Suite\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g10&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;fp=1" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=\%22PDF+Suite\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g10&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;fp=1</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you try Googling it * without * the word malware ? http : //www.google.com/ # hl = en&amp;source = hp&amp;q = \ % 22PDF + Suite \ % 22&amp;aq = f&amp;aqi = g10&amp;aql = &amp;oq = &amp;fp = 1 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you try Googling it *without* the word malware?http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=\%22PDF+Suite\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g10&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;fp=1 [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419396</id>
	<title>Re:Assume malware</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1268130360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories, but the concept hasn't panned out for Windows yet.</p></div></blockquote><p>I've been hearing this canard trotted out quite a bit recently... How Linux is so much easier than Windows to manage updates, so much easier than Windows to install software, etc.</p><p>But think about it for just a minute. The model only works because you trust RedHat, Gentoo, etc to do the right thing. Imagine if the recommended way for doing software installs or updating 3rd party apps was through Windows Update. How much uproar would there be about MS "requiring" software developers to register. How much fury would there be about MS trying to use it's monopoly practices to kill its competitors InstallShield and Download.com.</p><p>Just look at the iPhone app store. Do you really want that distribution model for Windows?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories , but the concept has n't panned out for Windows yet.I 've been hearing this canard trotted out quite a bit recently... How Linux is so much easier than Windows to manage updates , so much easier than Windows to install software , etc.But think about it for just a minute .
The model only works because you trust RedHat , Gentoo , etc to do the right thing .
Imagine if the recommended way for doing software installs or updating 3rd party apps was through Windows Update .
How much uproar would there be about MS " requiring " software developers to register .
How much fury would there be about MS trying to use it 's monopoly practices to kill its competitors InstallShield and Download.com.Just look at the iPhone app store .
Do you really want that distribution model for Windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories, but the concept hasn't panned out for Windows yet.I've been hearing this canard trotted out quite a bit recently... How Linux is so much easier than Windows to manage updates, so much easier than Windows to install software, etc.But think about it for just a minute.
The model only works because you trust RedHat, Gentoo, etc to do the right thing.
Imagine if the recommended way for doing software installs or updating 3rd party apps was through Windows Update.
How much uproar would there be about MS "requiring" software developers to register.
How much fury would there be about MS trying to use it's monopoly practices to kill its competitors InstallShield and Download.com.Just look at the iPhone app store.
Do you really want that distribution model for Windows?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418896</id>
	<title>Re:Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes availab</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268128260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its hard to believe Windows users don't have App repositories yet.</p><p>It's not *that* hard to believe...LOL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its hard to believe Windows users do n't have App repositories yet.It 's not * that * hard to believe...LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its hard to believe Windows users don't have App repositories yet.It's not *that* hard to believe...LOL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419086</id>
	<title>simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268129100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's not in the Ubuntu Software Center, don't even consider installing it.  Works great for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's not in the Ubuntu Software Center , do n't even consider installing it .
Works great for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's not in the Ubuntu Software Center, don't even consider installing it.
Works great for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31425032</id>
	<title>Well, in this instance...</title>
	<author>Dexy</author>
	<datestamp>1268230200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open My Computer &gt; Tools &gt; Folder Options &gt; File Types &gt; Scroll down to PDF &gt; Change "Opens with" to Adobe Reader.

Not malware. Just idiocy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open My Computer &gt; Tools &gt; Folder Options &gt; File Types &gt; Scroll down to PDF &gt; Change " Opens with " to Adobe Reader .
Not malware .
Just idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open My Computer &gt; Tools &gt; Folder Options &gt; File Types &gt; Scroll down to PDF &gt; Change "Opens with" to Adobe Reader.
Not malware.
Just idiocy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419030</id>
	<title>Re:"to big to download"</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1268128860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A dialup connection can pull a quarter gig per day.  Malwarebytes is under 10 megs with all updates and patches.  (More like 8 megs.)  You can get 200k per minute on dialup without breaking a sweat.  That's 5 minutes per meg.  That's 40 minutes for the full Malwarebytes download including updates.  How much time do you plan to spend investigating the source of every installed program?  Sure, it would be nice if there was a big list of every application on the planet with happy faces and frowny faces next to them but that would be a heck of a thing to maintain.  The few companies that maintain such lists aren't likely to give you direct access as they've got commercial products built around that information.  And, even if you found such a list, you would still have to pick through the installed programs and compare then one-by-one with the list.  How long will that take?  And the bad ones won't announce themselves by hopping on the add/remove programs list so you still need to scan.    Start downloading and have a beer while you wait.</p><p>Or, since you know what you're up against, load up the thumb drive before you go over next time.  Bring a couple of good spyware removal programs (and their standalone update files) along with the complete installer for a good AV program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A dialup connection can pull a quarter gig per day .
Malwarebytes is under 10 megs with all updates and patches .
( More like 8 megs .
) You can get 200k per minute on dialup without breaking a sweat .
That 's 5 minutes per meg .
That 's 40 minutes for the full Malwarebytes download including updates .
How much time do you plan to spend investigating the source of every installed program ?
Sure , it would be nice if there was a big list of every application on the planet with happy faces and frowny faces next to them but that would be a heck of a thing to maintain .
The few companies that maintain such lists are n't likely to give you direct access as they 've got commercial products built around that information .
And , even if you found such a list , you would still have to pick through the installed programs and compare then one-by-one with the list .
How long will that take ?
And the bad ones wo n't announce themselves by hopping on the add/remove programs list so you still need to scan .
Start downloading and have a beer while you wait.Or , since you know what you 're up against , load up the thumb drive before you go over next time .
Bring a couple of good spyware removal programs ( and their standalone update files ) along with the complete installer for a good AV program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A dialup connection can pull a quarter gig per day.
Malwarebytes is under 10 megs with all updates and patches.
(More like 8 megs.
)  You can get 200k per minute on dialup without breaking a sweat.
That's 5 minutes per meg.
That's 40 minutes for the full Malwarebytes download including updates.
How much time do you plan to spend investigating the source of every installed program?
Sure, it would be nice if there was a big list of every application on the planet with happy faces and frowny faces next to them but that would be a heck of a thing to maintain.
The few companies that maintain such lists aren't likely to give you direct access as they've got commercial products built around that information.
And, even if you found such a list, you would still have to pick through the installed programs and compare then one-by-one with the list.
How long will that take?
And the bad ones won't announce themselves by hopping on the add/remove programs list so you still need to scan.
Start downloading and have a beer while you wait.Or, since you know what you're up against, load up the thumb drive before you go over next time.
Bring a couple of good spyware removal programs (and their standalone update files) along with the complete installer for a good AV program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421222</id>
	<title>Preventing malware for Dummies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268139780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Install some good AV and FW. Period.

Other than that, preventing to get the computer infected with malware in the first place and for whatever stupid reasons avoid having to bother with scanners and updates, "teach" him this:

Only download from the original author's homepage and don't use Google to find it as it might turn up websites looking like it might be the homepage but aren't. Use wikipedia instead and follow the "official website" link there. If it doesn't have a wikipedia entry... well, if you are someone computer illiterate, then really just don't bother. There is a more popular and easier to use app for your task out there. How do you find it? Wikipedia, of course. I don't know what this PDF suite is but searching for pdf +list will turn up a list for many PDF creators and readers that are popular enough to have an entry. Just take your pick there. Same goes for anything else.

Protip for you: If you care about your friend, just clean his computer, install the protections from your USB stick, show him how to use them and make sure to bring updates the next time you are around. Also let him just call and ask you if something is safe to download, request his download-link by email and check it with your broadband. If you don't care about him, then... just don't care! Say NO! and kthxbye.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Install some good AV and FW .
Period . Other than that , preventing to get the computer infected with malware in the first place and for whatever stupid reasons avoid having to bother with scanners and updates , " teach " him this : Only download from the original author 's homepage and do n't use Google to find it as it might turn up websites looking like it might be the homepage but are n't .
Use wikipedia instead and follow the " official website " link there .
If it does n't have a wikipedia entry... well , if you are someone computer illiterate , then really just do n't bother .
There is a more popular and easier to use app for your task out there .
How do you find it ?
Wikipedia , of course .
I do n't know what this PDF suite is but searching for pdf + list will turn up a list for many PDF creators and readers that are popular enough to have an entry .
Just take your pick there .
Same goes for anything else .
Protip for you : If you care about your friend , just clean his computer , install the protections from your USB stick , show him how to use them and make sure to bring updates the next time you are around .
Also let him just call and ask you if something is safe to download , request his download-link by email and check it with your broadband .
If you do n't care about him , then... just do n't care !
Say NO !
and kthxbye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Install some good AV and FW.
Period.

Other than that, preventing to get the computer infected with malware in the first place and for whatever stupid reasons avoid having to bother with scanners and updates, "teach" him this:

Only download from the original author's homepage and don't use Google to find it as it might turn up websites looking like it might be the homepage but aren't.
Use wikipedia instead and follow the "official website" link there.
If it doesn't have a wikipedia entry... well, if you are someone computer illiterate, then really just don't bother.
There is a more popular and easier to use app for your task out there.
How do you find it?
Wikipedia, of course.
I don't know what this PDF suite is but searching for pdf +list will turn up a list for many PDF creators and readers that are popular enough to have an entry.
Just take your pick there.
Same goes for anything else.
Protip for you: If you care about your friend, just clean his computer, install the protections from your USB stick, show him how to use them and make sure to bring updates the next time you are around.
Also let him just call and ask you if something is safe to download, request his download-link by email and check it with your broadband.
If you don't care about him, then... just don't care!
Say NO!
and kthxbye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421268</id>
	<title>Surprised no one mentioned this.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1268140080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several good online virus scanners. They will ask you to download a small plugin, but I've used them with great success, without having to install applications.</p><p><a href="http://housecall.trendmicro.com/" title="trendmicro.com">http://housecall.trendmicro.com/</a> [trendmicro.com]<br><a href="http://security.symantec.com/sscv6/home.asp" title="symantec.com">http://security.symantec.com/sscv6/home.asp</a> [symantec.com]</p><p>Also, two arguments against what is often suggested:</p><p>1) Virus scanners aren't for everyone. Some are extremely intrusive, often with their own "innovative" interfaces that make them bulky and impossible to manage for novices. Some will hijack your email applications, not tell you exactly when they block or delete something, and can also hinder web surfing speeds. If you don't know how things work already, having a scanner will make things even more confusing. Add subscription fees, and I say the whole thing isn't worth it.</p><p>2) No, I don't think "knowing your software" is a good way to tell if something is legit. Seriously, Windows alone will update itself and install weird things, as do most large software suites these days. They give ambiguous names to critical components, and to think we would know them unless they were dangerous is a bit much.</p><p>If you know what you're doing, I'd say you can avoid most issues by just being careful and knowing the signs (of danger and of contamination).</p><p>If you don't (or helping someone who doesn't), then I say dumb down the apps so things are simpler and safer. Like migrate to gmail, make FireFox or Chrome the default browser, and just setup all the bundled security features to their appropriate settings (windows firewall etc).</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several good online virus scanners .
They will ask you to download a small plugin , but I 've used them with great success , without having to install applications.http : //housecall.trendmicro.com/ [ trendmicro.com ] http : //security.symantec.com/sscv6/home.asp [ symantec.com ] Also , two arguments against what is often suggested : 1 ) Virus scanners are n't for everyone .
Some are extremely intrusive , often with their own " innovative " interfaces that make them bulky and impossible to manage for novices .
Some will hijack your email applications , not tell you exactly when they block or delete something , and can also hinder web surfing speeds .
If you do n't know how things work already , having a scanner will make things even more confusing .
Add subscription fees , and I say the whole thing is n't worth it.2 ) No , I do n't think " knowing your software " is a good way to tell if something is legit .
Seriously , Windows alone will update itself and install weird things , as do most large software suites these days .
They give ambiguous names to critical components , and to think we would know them unless they were dangerous is a bit much.If you know what you 're doing , I 'd say you can avoid most issues by just being careful and knowing the signs ( of danger and of contamination ) .If you do n't ( or helping someone who does n't ) , then I say dumb down the apps so things are simpler and safer .
Like migrate to gmail , make FireFox or Chrome the default browser , and just setup all the bundled security features to their appropriate settings ( windows firewall etc ) .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several good online virus scanners.
They will ask you to download a small plugin, but I've used them with great success, without having to install applications.http://housecall.trendmicro.com/ [trendmicro.com]http://security.symantec.com/sscv6/home.asp [symantec.com]Also, two arguments against what is often suggested:1) Virus scanners aren't for everyone.
Some are extremely intrusive, often with their own "innovative" interfaces that make them bulky and impossible to manage for novices.
Some will hijack your email applications, not tell you exactly when they block or delete something, and can also hinder web surfing speeds.
If you don't know how things work already, having a scanner will make things even more confusing.
Add subscription fees, and I say the whole thing isn't worth it.2) No, I don't think "knowing your software" is a good way to tell if something is legit.
Seriously, Windows alone will update itself and install weird things, as do most large software suites these days.
They give ambiguous names to critical components, and to think we would know them unless they were dangerous is a bit much.If you know what you're doing, I'd say you can avoid most issues by just being careful and knowing the signs (of danger and of contamination).If you don't (or helping someone who doesn't), then I say dumb down the apps so things are simpler and safer.
Like migrate to gmail, make FireFox or Chrome the default browser, and just setup all the bundled security features to their appropriate settings (windows firewall etc).
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420982</id>
	<title>Re:Why are you doing this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268138100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had luck talking people through installing tightvnc and adding me as a client.  I can then do simple work.  You're right in general though, talking people through trying to do anything is incredibly painful and normally doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had luck talking people through installing tightvnc and adding me as a client .
I can then do simple work .
You 're right in general though , talking people through trying to do anything is incredibly painful and normally does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had luck talking people through installing tightvnc and adding me as a client.
I can then do simple work.
You're right in general though, talking people through trying to do anything is incredibly painful and normally doesn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418784</id>
	<title>Look at it this way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is malware, it's probably more secure against attack than Adobe Reader is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is malware , it 's probably more secure against attack than Adobe Reader is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is malware, it's probably more secure against attack than Adobe Reader is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420280</id>
	<title>If they can't tell....</title>
	<author>Zadaz</author>
	<datestamp>1268134380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they (or you) can't tell then running Antivirus and Malware detection isn't "too heavy consider" it's mandatory, even if it means a few hours on dialup.  If they can download the crapware they can download the AV.</p><p>(And you're being overly dramatic. Daily updates should take a few minutes to download at most, even on dialup.)</p><p>If the King can't afford a food taster then he gets poisoned or he starves to death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they ( or you ) ca n't tell then running Antivirus and Malware detection is n't " too heavy consider " it 's mandatory , even if it means a few hours on dialup .
If they can download the crapware they can download the AV .
( And you 're being overly dramatic .
Daily updates should take a few minutes to download at most , even on dialup .
) If the King ca n't afford a food taster then he gets poisoned or he starves to death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they (or you) can't tell then running Antivirus and Malware detection isn't "too heavy consider" it's mandatory, even if it means a few hours on dialup.
If they can download the crapware they can download the AV.
(And you're being overly dramatic.
Daily updates should take a few minutes to download at most, even on dialup.
)If the King can't afford a food taster then he gets poisoned or he starves to death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419606</id>
	<title>Compulsory...</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1268131260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hopefully your friend has kept all the original packing that their computer came in. Repack everything and return it to the original vendor. Tell them that your friend (and quite possibly your friend's friend) is not really smart enough to own a computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>hopefully your friend has kept all the original packing that their computer came in .
Repack everything and return it to the original vendor .
Tell them that your friend ( and quite possibly your friend 's friend ) is not really smart enough to own a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hopefully your friend has kept all the original packing that their computer came in.
Repack everything and return it to the original vendor.
Tell them that your friend (and quite possibly your friend's friend) is not really smart enough to own a computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418704</id>
	<title>Feel free to use my method</title>
	<author>yttrstein</author>
	<datestamp>1268127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/ports/* &gt;&gt; notmalware.txt</htmltext>
<tokenext>find /usr/ports/ * &gt; &gt; notmalware.txt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>find /usr/ports/* &gt;&gt; notmalware.txt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31427602</id>
	<title>Re:Assume malware</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1268242980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which, if MS tried to do, I'm sure would be given hell for trying to control what software people are allowed to install on their own computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which , if MS tried to do , I 'm sure would be given hell for trying to control what software people are allowed to install on their own computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which, if MS tried to do, I'm sure would be given hell for trying to control what software people are allowed to install on their own computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418974</id>
	<title>Re:Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes availab</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1268128620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990's way of installing software. Its hard to believe Windows users don't have App repositories yet.</p></div><p>App repositories are only good if they are always up to date.  One can go to Ubuntu forums, as an example, to find numerous stories of people having to go outside of the repositories to find the latest versions of apps or to find apps that aren't in the repository.  Sure, repositories can help to ease in installing and finding software but they aren't this perfect magic bullet as people like you like to claim.  If they were why is there any need of a mechanism to add 3rd party repositories in apt?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990 's way of installing software .
Its hard to believe Windows users do n't have App repositories yet.App repositories are only good if they are always up to date .
One can go to Ubuntu forums , as an example , to find numerous stories of people having to go outside of the repositories to find the latest versions of apps or to find apps that are n't in the repository .
Sure , repositories can help to ease in installing and finding software but they are n't this perfect magic bullet as people like you like to claim .
If they were why is there any need of a mechanism to add 3rd party repositories in apt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990's way of installing software.
Its hard to believe Windows users don't have App repositories yet.App repositories are only good if they are always up to date.
One can go to Ubuntu forums, as an example, to find numerous stories of people having to go outside of the repositories to find the latest versions of apps or to find apps that aren't in the repository.
Sure, repositories can help to ease in installing and finding software but they aren't this perfect magic bullet as people like you like to claim.
If they were why is there any need of a mechanism to add 3rd party repositories in apt?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420640</id>
	<title>Free Virus Scanner</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1268136120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get the ISO from <a href="http://trinityhome.org/Home/index.php?wpid=1&amp;front\_id=12" title="trinityhome.org">http://trinityhome.org/Home/index.php?wpid=1&amp;front\_id=12</a> [trinityhome.org] for the Trinity Rescue Kit. Run it. Update it and save the updated ISO image. Burn that to a CD and give it to your friend. He can run it and disinfect his computer without an Internet connection. Give him an updated CD every month.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the ISO from http : //trinityhome.org/Home/index.php ? wpid = 1&amp;front \ _id = 12 [ trinityhome.org ] for the Trinity Rescue Kit .
Run it .
Update it and save the updated ISO image .
Burn that to a CD and give it to your friend .
He can run it and disinfect his computer without an Internet connection .
Give him an updated CD every month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the ISO from http://trinityhome.org/Home/index.php?wpid=1&amp;front\_id=12 [trinityhome.org] for the Trinity Rescue Kit.
Run it.
Update it and save the updated ISO image.
Burn that to a CD and give it to your friend.
He can run it and disinfect his computer without an Internet connection.
Give him an updated CD every month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418754</id>
	<title>Re:"to big to download"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe his comment should be taken as, "This is a person that doesn't want/will not allow unfamiliar applications installed on their computer, but are not wise enough to filter out the crap they should not be touching."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe his comment should be taken as , " This is a person that does n't want/will not allow unfamiliar applications installed on their computer , but are not wise enough to filter out the crap they should not be touching .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe his comment should be taken as, "This is a person that doesn't want/will not allow unfamiliar applications installed on their computer, but are not wise enough to filter out the crap they should not be touching.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31427910</id>
	<title>Helping the clueless</title>
	<author>drissel</author>
	<datestamp>1268244360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't try to identify the myriads of malware.  Persuade such folks to surf from a live CD.<br>.<br>Regards,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Bill Drissel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't try to identify the myriads of malware .
Persuade such folks to surf from a live CD..Regards ,     Bill Drissel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't try to identify the myriads of malware.
Persuade such folks to surf from a live CD..Regards,
    Bill Drissel</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419272</id>
	<title>Re:Assume malware</title>
	<author>perlchild</author>
	<datestamp>1268129820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to say the only safe approach was to whitelist, but you beat me to it.</p><p>If you're not sure, don't.</p><p>You're better off living without that one piece of software that's obscure, than dealing with the malware.</p><p>If you really can't live without one piece of software, then you gotta research it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to say the only safe approach was to whitelist , but you beat me to it.If you 're not sure , do n't.You 're better off living without that one piece of software that 's obscure , than dealing with the malware.If you really ca n't live without one piece of software , then you got ta research it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to say the only safe approach was to whitelist, but you beat me to it.If you're not sure, don't.You're better off living without that one piece of software that's obscure, than dealing with the malware.If you really can't live without one piece of software, then you gotta research it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658</id>
	<title>Assume malware</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1268127240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've never heard of an application, assume that it's untrusted malware.</p><p>Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories, but the concept hasn't panned out for Windows yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've never heard of an application , assume that it 's untrusted malware.Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories , but the concept has n't panned out for Windows yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've never heard of an application, assume that it's untrusted malware.Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories, but the concept hasn't panned out for Windows yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419632</id>
	<title>Is it in the repository?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268131380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So my question is, where can you go to find out if something is legitimate?</p></div></blockquote><p>The quickie test is: if it's in the repository (Linux) or ports (*BSD), then the app probably at least means well; it's very unlikely going to be deliberate malware (though it might be buggy).   If it's not in the repository and not written in-house, then it's at least suspicious.  Who vouched for it?  <em>How</em> does it get installed in the first place? It's actually pretty rare for this situation to even come up; when it does, there ought to be an explanation.  Is this a developer checking out app sources from github or something?</p><p>If it's suspicious, then you need to audit the source yourself (Hi, Theo!), do without it, or install it with acceptance that it may compromise the machine (you're doing this in a VM, right?).  If you're a casual user, then the real answer 99.999\% of the time, is to do without.  You don't want to end up like those poor Windows users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So my question is , where can you go to find out if something is legitimate ? The quickie test is : if it 's in the repository ( Linux ) or ports ( * BSD ) , then the app probably at least means well ; it 's very unlikely going to be deliberate malware ( though it might be buggy ) .
If it 's not in the repository and not written in-house , then it 's at least suspicious .
Who vouched for it ?
How does it get installed in the first place ?
It 's actually pretty rare for this situation to even come up ; when it does , there ought to be an explanation .
Is this a developer checking out app sources from github or something ? If it 's suspicious , then you need to audit the source yourself ( Hi , Theo !
) , do without it , or install it with acceptance that it may compromise the machine ( you 're doing this in a VM , right ? ) .
If you 're a casual user , then the real answer 99.999 \ % of the time , is to do without .
You do n't want to end up like those poor Windows users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So my question is, where can you go to find out if something is legitimate?The quickie test is: if it's in the repository (Linux) or ports (*BSD), then the app probably at least means well; it's very unlikely going to be deliberate malware (though it might be buggy).
If it's not in the repository and not written in-house, then it's at least suspicious.
Who vouched for it?
How does it get installed in the first place?
It's actually pretty rare for this situation to even come up; when it does, there ought to be an explanation.
Is this a developer checking out app sources from github or something?If it's suspicious, then you need to audit the source yourself (Hi, Theo!
), do without it, or install it with acceptance that it may compromise the machine (you're doing this in a VM, right?).
If you're a casual user, then the real answer 99.999\% of the time, is to do without.
You don't want to end up like those poor Windows users.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31422636</id>
	<title>DRM</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1268152020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my experience if your application fails a DRM check it's probably legit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience if your application fails a DRM check it 's probably legit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience if your application fails a DRM check it's probably legit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31424758</id>
	<title>Solutions, solutions, ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268226180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solution #1. Tell everyone to ask an expert. At this point there are two possibilities: 1) They are click-happy idiots with their brains turned off since they were born. They don't know how to locate experts, also couldn't care less and will loudly whine when 'messenger' doesn't work. Hopeless - stay away. 2) They are ignorant but intelligent. Tell them to always buy software at a brick and mortar store and to ask an expert before. If they don't ask, put them on the queue, punish them with waiting time until you are tired of waiting.</p><p>Solution #2. If the person is important to you (parents, fiance, no one else), set up an old computer and a DSL/Cable service at their home. Install Linux there. At your home host a virtual machine with familiar software (windows/thunderbird) accessing a IMAP server also virtual at your home. Firewall that virtual pair off your own network or put them on their own virtual network so they are isolated. The local account at your parents' is locked down completely, and of course no admin privileges. Teach them how to use remote desktop. Let them click on trojans/whatever at their convenience. When they call, tell them 'One minute, dad', and just power off their VM and revert it to a good snapshot (the one I didn't tell you to do! You did it, right?). They are good before they can hang up the phone. Email is not gone because I said it's IMAP. Nothing is gone. No virus can get out, revert equals instant disinfection of the most sophisticated malware. Your parents are happy, you are happy. Make them pay for *your* DSL.</p><p>Of course there are downsides to this: I hear you yadda yadda. Parents/fianc&#233; don't want fancy. Shut up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solution # 1 .
Tell everyone to ask an expert .
At this point there are two possibilities : 1 ) They are click-happy idiots with their brains turned off since they were born .
They do n't know how to locate experts , also could n't care less and will loudly whine when 'messenger ' does n't work .
Hopeless - stay away .
2 ) They are ignorant but intelligent .
Tell them to always buy software at a brick and mortar store and to ask an expert before .
If they do n't ask , put them on the queue , punish them with waiting time until you are tired of waiting.Solution # 2 .
If the person is important to you ( parents , fiance , no one else ) , set up an old computer and a DSL/Cable service at their home .
Install Linux there .
At your home host a virtual machine with familiar software ( windows/thunderbird ) accessing a IMAP server also virtual at your home .
Firewall that virtual pair off your own network or put them on their own virtual network so they are isolated .
The local account at your parents ' is locked down completely , and of course no admin privileges .
Teach them how to use remote desktop .
Let them click on trojans/whatever at their convenience .
When they call , tell them 'One minute , dad ' , and just power off their VM and revert it to a good snapshot ( the one I did n't tell you to do !
You did it , right ? ) .
They are good before they can hang up the phone .
Email is not gone because I said it 's IMAP .
Nothing is gone .
No virus can get out , revert equals instant disinfection of the most sophisticated malware .
Your parents are happy , you are happy .
Make them pay for * your * DSL.Of course there are downsides to this : I hear you yadda yadda .
Parents/fianc   do n't want fancy .
Shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solution #1.
Tell everyone to ask an expert.
At this point there are two possibilities: 1) They are click-happy idiots with their brains turned off since they were born.
They don't know how to locate experts, also couldn't care less and will loudly whine when 'messenger' doesn't work.
Hopeless - stay away.
2) They are ignorant but intelligent.
Tell them to always buy software at a brick and mortar store and to ask an expert before.
If they don't ask, put them on the queue, punish them with waiting time until you are tired of waiting.Solution #2.
If the person is important to you (parents, fiance, no one else), set up an old computer and a DSL/Cable service at their home.
Install Linux there.
At your home host a virtual machine with familiar software (windows/thunderbird) accessing a IMAP server also virtual at your home.
Firewall that virtual pair off your own network or put them on their own virtual network so they are isolated.
The local account at your parents' is locked down completely, and of course no admin privileges.
Teach them how to use remote desktop.
Let them click on trojans/whatever at their convenience.
When they call, tell them 'One minute, dad', and just power off their VM and revert it to a good snapshot (the one I didn't tell you to do!
You did it, right?).
They are good before they can hang up the phone.
Email is not gone because I said it's IMAP.
Nothing is gone.
No virus can get out, revert equals instant disinfection of the most sophisticated malware.
Your parents are happy, you are happy.
Make them pay for *your* DSL.Of course there are downsides to this: I hear you yadda yadda.
Parents/fiancé don't want fancy.
Shut up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694</id>
	<title>Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes available?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes available?
</p><p>Linux repositories are signed with pgp keys, this is usually pretty good(pun intended) for security. Even when breaches happen things are found out pretty quickly.

</p><p>Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990's way of installing software. Its hard to believe Windows users don't have App repositories yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes available ?
Linux repositories are signed with pgp keys , this is usually pretty good ( pun intended ) for security .
Even when breaches happen things are found out pretty quickly .
Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990 's way of installing software .
Its hard to believe Windows users do n't have App repositories yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes available?
Linux repositories are signed with pgp keys, this is usually pretty good(pun intended) for security.
Even when breaches happen things are found out pretty quickly.
Searching the internet for downloads and running downloaded apps to install is a very 1990's way of installing software.
Its hard to believe Windows users don't have App repositories yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419720</id>
	<title>Re PDFSuite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268131740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may have just found an old Windows app. PDF995 had a number of pdf applications, and I think all together they became pdfsuite. They were entirely legitimate, sold for about $20 as I remember, and let you export print files as pdfs, make changes to pdfs, etc.

Try searching for PDF995 Suite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may have just found an old Windows app .
PDF995 had a number of pdf applications , and I think all together they became pdfsuite .
They were entirely legitimate , sold for about $ 20 as I remember , and let you export print files as pdfs , make changes to pdfs , etc .
Try searching for PDF995 Suite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may have just found an old Windows app.
PDF995 had a number of pdf applications, and I think all together they became pdfsuite.
They were entirely legitimate, sold for about $20 as I remember, and let you export print files as pdfs, make changes to pdfs, etc.
Try searching for PDF995 Suite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418670</id>
	<title>Legit</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1268127300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Legit" apps sells your info just as well as the others.  That's another plug of open source software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Legit " apps sells your info just as well as the others .
That 's another plug of open source software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Legit" apps sells your info just as well as the others.
That's another plug of open source software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419884</id>
	<title>iPad, Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268132520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only there were a moderated, if a little bit restrictive, "store" where one could purchase "apps".  A single, central location for free and for-pay applications... hmm.  That way you wouldn't have to double-check and perform research on whether or not an application will asplode your computer.  If only there was a platform just-locked-down-enough to prevent this kind of snafu.  Maybe if it had a nice, touch interface, you could give it to a computer-illiterate person.  Making it shiny might not hurt.  Oh, and a 3G/Edge connection sure would be nice, to drop the chains of dialup and all.</p><p>Too bad nothing like the iPad exists.</p><p>Oh wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only there were a moderated , if a little bit restrictive , " store " where one could purchase " apps " .
A single , central location for free and for-pay applications... hmm. That way you would n't have to double-check and perform research on whether or not an application will asplode your computer .
If only there was a platform just-locked-down-enough to prevent this kind of snafu .
Maybe if it had a nice , touch interface , you could give it to a computer-illiterate person .
Making it shiny might not hurt .
Oh , and a 3G/Edge connection sure would be nice , to drop the chains of dialup and all.Too bad nothing like the iPad exists.Oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only there were a moderated, if a little bit restrictive, "store" where one could purchase "apps".
A single, central location for free and for-pay applications... hmm.  That way you wouldn't have to double-check and perform research on whether or not an application will asplode your computer.
If only there was a platform just-locked-down-enough to prevent this kind of snafu.
Maybe if it had a nice, touch interface, you could give it to a computer-illiterate person.
Making it shiny might not hurt.
Oh, and a 3G/Edge connection sure would be nice, to drop the chains of dialup and all.Too bad nothing like the iPad exists.Oh wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421464</id>
	<title>Re:Maintain the USB stick.</title>
	<author>WhitePanther5000</author>
	<datestamp>1268141280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you've still got that USB stick with known-trustworthy installers.</p></div><p>That's a great plan, until your USB stick gets infected from the machine you were trying to clean.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 've still got that USB stick with known-trustworthy installers.That 's a great plan , until your USB stick gets infected from the machine you were trying to clean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you've still got that USB stick with known-trustworthy installers.That's a great plan, until your USB stick gets infected from the machine you were trying to clean.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419860</id>
	<title>Really Dialup?</title>
	<author>dthardcore</author>
	<datestamp>1268132400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before even bothering to discuss where to check to see if software is legit or not, my main question is why is this person still using dial-up? It is ridiculous to be using dial-up this day in age to browse the internet or be downloading software. I understand dial-up to be used for verification purposes or other low-data transfer usage, but where Hi-Speed connections can be had for as little as $10 a month, dial-up seems more problematic than its worth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before even bothering to discuss where to check to see if software is legit or not , my main question is why is this person still using dial-up ?
It is ridiculous to be using dial-up this day in age to browse the internet or be downloading software .
I understand dial-up to be used for verification purposes or other low-data transfer usage , but where Hi-Speed connections can be had for as little as $ 10 a month , dial-up seems more problematic than its worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before even bothering to discuss where to check to see if software is legit or not, my main question is why is this person still using dial-up?
It is ridiculous to be using dial-up this day in age to browse the internet or be downloading software.
I understand dial-up to be used for verification purposes or other low-data transfer usage, but where Hi-Speed connections can be had for as little as $10 a month, dial-up seems more problematic than its worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418848</id>
	<title>you answered your own question</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1268128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that you answered your own question.</p><p>Before installing an unknown application, do a little research first; such as google for the app + malware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that you answered your own question.Before installing an unknown application , do a little research first ; such as google for the app + malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that you answered your own question.Before installing an unknown application, do a little research first; such as google for the app + malware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420858</id>
	<title>Re:Really Dialup?</title>
	<author>Rick17JJ</author>
	<datestamp>1268137320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Despite living near a small city in Arizona, high-speed access only became available here about 3 years ago. In some rural areas where cell phones don't work, they probably still don't have high-speed Internet available.<br><br>When I was stuck on dial-up, I could not get the faster 56K dial-up, because the local telephone lines were only good enough for 26.4K. Fortunately, DSL from the telephone company finally became available for $39.99 per month, several years ago. By the way, cable was not available where I live.<br><br>Are there actually places where people can actually get high speed Internet for only $10?  That is 1/4 what my only option for high-speed access costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite living near a small city in Arizona , high-speed access only became available here about 3 years ago .
In some rural areas where cell phones do n't work , they probably still do n't have high-speed Internet available.When I was stuck on dial-up , I could not get the faster 56K dial-up , because the local telephone lines were only good enough for 26.4K .
Fortunately , DSL from the telephone company finally became available for $ 39.99 per month , several years ago .
By the way , cable was not available where I live.Are there actually places where people can actually get high speed Internet for only $ 10 ?
That is 1/4 what my only option for high-speed access costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite living near a small city in Arizona, high-speed access only became available here about 3 years ago.
In some rural areas where cell phones don't work, they probably still don't have high-speed Internet available.When I was stuck on dial-up, I could not get the faster 56K dial-up, because the local telephone lines were only good enough for 26.4K.
Fortunately, DSL from the telephone company finally became available for $39.99 per month, several years ago.
By the way, cable was not available where I live.Are there actually places where people can actually get high speed Internet for only $10?
That is 1/4 what my only option for high-speed access costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420470</id>
	<title>Re:Assume malware</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1268135220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories, but the concept hasn't panned out for Windows yet."<br> <br>Oh come onnnnn. Windows is fine with this. Go to download.com or some such and nothing there will be malware loaded. CERTAINLY nothing with any decent rating, why would you want 1star apps anyways? Even if you just google an app... like "torrent app" it is really rare that there would be a malware app on the first....... 5 pages or so (I can't imagine needing to go past page 1). And beyond even that I'm certain that ANY techy/nerd guy has a list in his head of every single app that their non-nerd friend would use on their computer. In fact:<br> <br>
Browser: IE, FF, Opera, Chrome<br>
Office suite: msoffice, openoffice, google docs<br>
Images: photoshop, paint.net, gimp, paint...<br>
music: winamp, amarok, wmp<br>
video: cccp w/ mpc, vlc, wmp<br>
messengers: msn, skype, gchat, w/e the hell yahoo's thing is called<br>
PDF: foxit, adobe(if you don't care about the person)<br>
email: gmail... just put a link on their desktop<br>
There, you now have an excessive list of safe apps that the average non-computer user will need. I could probably list 50 more niche apps from memory but if you can read this then you also have google....<br>
search: google.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories , but the concept has n't panned out for Windows yet .
" Oh come onnnnn .
Windows is fine with this .
Go to download.com or some such and nothing there will be malware loaded .
CERTAINLY nothing with any decent rating , why would you want 1star apps anyways ?
Even if you just google an app... like " torrent app " it is really rare that there would be a malware app on the first....... 5 pages or so ( I ca n't imagine needing to go past page 1 ) .
And beyond even that I 'm certain that ANY techy/nerd guy has a list in his head of every single app that their non-nerd friend would use on their computer .
In fact : Browser : IE , FF , Opera , Chrome Office suite : msoffice , openoffice , google docs Images : photoshop , paint.net , gimp , paint.. . music : winamp , amarok , wmp video : cccp w/ mpc , vlc , wmp messengers : msn , skype , gchat , w/e the hell yahoo 's thing is called PDF : foxit , adobe ( if you do n't care about the person ) email : gmail... just put a link on their desktop There , you now have an excessive list of safe apps that the average non-computer user will need .
I could probably list 50 more niche apps from memory but if you can read this then you also have google... . search : google.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories, but the concept hasn't panned out for Windows yet.
" Oh come onnnnn.
Windows is fine with this.
Go to download.com or some such and nothing there will be malware loaded.
CERTAINLY nothing with any decent rating, why would you want 1star apps anyways?
Even if you just google an app... like "torrent app" it is really rare that there would be a malware app on the first....... 5 pages or so (I can't imagine needing to go past page 1).
And beyond even that I'm certain that ANY techy/nerd guy has a list in his head of every single app that their non-nerd friend would use on their computer.
In fact: 
Browser: IE, FF, Opera, Chrome
Office suite: msoffice, openoffice, google docs
Images: photoshop, paint.net, gimp, paint...
music: winamp, amarok, wmp
video: cccp w/ mpc, vlc, wmp
messengers: msn, skype, gchat, w/e the hell yahoo's thing is called
PDF: foxit, adobe(if you don't care about the person)
email: gmail... just put a link on their desktop
There, you now have an excessive list of safe apps that the average non-computer user will need.
I could probably list 50 more niche apps from memory but if you can read this then you also have google....
search: google.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419972</id>
	<title>How to find malware on your system</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1268133060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, this ain't bulletproof but it's a start.</p><p>1) Download <a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx" title="microsoft.com">autoruns</a> [microsoft.com], run it, take a look at what it finds.<br>2) Think something is suspicious? Upload to <a href="http://www.virustotal.com/" title="virustotal.com">Virus Total</a> [virustotal.com].<br>3) Act accordingly</p><p>It's anything but foolproof and there are a LOT of things that will slip past, but it's a good way to start without having to know anything about software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , this ai n't bulletproof but it 's a start.1 ) Download autoruns [ microsoft.com ] , run it , take a look at what it finds.2 ) Think something is suspicious ?
Upload to Virus Total [ virustotal.com ] .3 ) Act accordinglyIt 's anything but foolproof and there are a LOT of things that will slip past , but it 's a good way to start without having to know anything about software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, this ain't bulletproof but it's a start.1) Download autoruns [microsoft.com], run it, take a look at what it finds.2) Think something is suspicious?
Upload to Virus Total [virustotal.com].3) Act accordinglyIt's anything but foolproof and there are a LOT of things that will slip past, but it's a good way to start without having to know anything about software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418782</id>
	<title>Hard to Define "Trusted"</title>
	<author>DIplomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1268127660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately there's no one good list of "Trusted" software. Mostly because "trusted" cannot be empirically measured.
Trusted by whom?
Bloatware/Spyware/Crapware are sort of like art, you know it when you see it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately there 's no one good list of " Trusted " software .
Mostly because " trusted " can not be empirically measured .
Trusted by whom ?
Bloatware/Spyware/Crapware are sort of like art , you know it when you see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately there's no one good list of "Trusted" software.
Mostly because "trusted" cannot be empirically measured.
Trusted by whom?
Bloatware/Spyware/Crapware are sort of like art, you know it when you see it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419118</id>
	<title>file advisor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268129160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://fileadvisor.bit9.com You can search by file name or md5 hash, but you'll want to use the md5 hash to ensure you are checking the real file (and that it is not just spoofing a good file)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //fileadvisor.bit9.com You can search by file name or md5 hash , but you 'll want to use the md5 hash to ensure you are checking the real file ( and that it is not just spoofing a good file )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://fileadvisor.bit9.com You can search by file name or md5 hash, but you'll want to use the md5 hash to ensure you are checking the real file (and that it is not just spoofing a good file)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419410</id>
	<title>bit9</title>
	<author>elhondo</author>
	<datestamp>1268130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>may help.  they collect a lot of md5's and have a plugin to run an md5 within explorer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>may help .
they collect a lot of md5 's and have a plugin to run an md5 within explorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>may help.
they collect a lot of md5's and have a plugin to run an md5 within explorer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420724</id>
	<title>Re:Assume malware</title>
	<author>Jazz-Masta</author>
	<datestamp>1268136540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you've never heard of an application, assume that it's untrusted malware.</p><p>Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories, but the concept hasn't panned out for Windows yet.</p></div><p>Linux? Never heard of it. Must be malware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've never heard of an application , assume that it 's untrusted malware.Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories , but the concept has n't panned out for Windows yet.Linux ?
Never heard of it .
Must be malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've never heard of an application, assume that it's untrusted malware.Linux has been pioneering a way around this through trusted software repositories, but the concept hasn't panned out for Windows yet.Linux?
Never heard of it.
Must be malware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418972</id>
	<title>Document everything.</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268128620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're a small shop and can't afford the "arm, leg, and firstborn" prices of volume licensing, set up a system where a manager or an experienced IT admin pre-approves software installation, and makes a (hopefully organized) record* of what software got installed on what computer/server.</p><p>If you're not starting up, have all the users go through their PCs and write up a list of software on their computers. It's disruptive, it's time-consuming, but only when you do it the first time, and it ferrets out the odd user who installed Google Desktop and a crapton of add-ons, distracting him more than making him more productive.</p><p>* If there's discomfort over management approval of software installs, you could be fairly liberal about it and say "well, you can install anything within company policy (i.e. no porn), just let us know so we don't freak out when WeIRDsofTWAREName shows up."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're a small shop and ca n't afford the " arm , leg , and firstborn " prices of volume licensing , set up a system where a manager or an experienced IT admin pre-approves software installation , and makes a ( hopefully organized ) record * of what software got installed on what computer/server.If you 're not starting up , have all the users go through their PCs and write up a list of software on their computers .
It 's disruptive , it 's time-consuming , but only when you do it the first time , and it ferrets out the odd user who installed Google Desktop and a crapton of add-ons , distracting him more than making him more productive .
* If there 's discomfort over management approval of software installs , you could be fairly liberal about it and say " well , you can install anything within company policy ( i.e .
no porn ) , just let us know so we do n't freak out when WeIRDsofTWAREName shows up .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're a small shop and can't afford the "arm, leg, and firstborn" prices of volume licensing, set up a system where a manager or an experienced IT admin pre-approves software installation, and makes a (hopefully organized) record* of what software got installed on what computer/server.If you're not starting up, have all the users go through their PCs and write up a list of software on their computers.
It's disruptive, it's time-consuming, but only when you do it the first time, and it ferrets out the odd user who installed Google Desktop and a crapton of add-ons, distracting him more than making him more productive.
* If there's discomfort over management approval of software installs, you could be fairly liberal about it and say "well, you can install anything within company policy (i.e.
no porn), just let us know so we don't freak out when WeIRDsofTWAREName shows up.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419686</id>
	<title>Great tool for identifying legit applications</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1268131560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just download <a href="http:///www.amilegit.com.ru/legit\_app\_detector\_\_win32\_trojanfree!!!!.exe" title="amilegit.com.ru">http:///www.amilegit.com.ru/legit\_app\_detector\_\_win32\_trojanfree!!!!.exe</a> [amilegit.com.ru] and it will scan the app and tell you if it is legitimate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just download http : ///www.amilegit.com.ru/legit \ _app \ _detector \ _ \ _win32 \ _trojanfree ! ! !
! .exe [ amilegit.com.ru ] and it will scan the app and tell you if it is legitimate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just download http:///www.amilegit.com.ru/legit\_app\_detector\_\_win32\_trojanfree!!!
!.exe [amilegit.com.ru] and it will scan the app and tell you if it is legitimate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418656</id>
	<title>"to big to download"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>downloading malware detection applications (and updates) is too heavy consider.</p><p>Any yet they find the time to download all of that malware...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>downloading malware detection applications ( and updates ) is too heavy consider.Any yet they find the time to download all of that malware.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>downloading malware detection applications (and updates) is too heavy consider.Any yet they find the time to download all of that malware...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420538</id>
	<title>Anything can be "malware"</title>
	<author>syntaxeater</author>
	<datestamp>1268135640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Outside of scanning and known definitions - the only difference between software and malware is intent.  Creating a complete, current and accurate list of potential and existing "malware" is like trying to find a list of door and window manufacturers burglars use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Outside of scanning and known definitions - the only difference between software and malware is intent .
Creating a complete , current and accurate list of potential and existing " malware " is like trying to find a list of door and window manufacturers burglars use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outside of scanning and known definitions - the only difference between software and malware is intent.
Creating a complete, current and accurate list of potential and existing "malware" is like trying to find a list of door and window manufacturers burglars use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419882</id>
	<title>Re:Assume malware</title>
	<author>EdelFactor19</author>
	<datestamp>1268132520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you don't HAVE TO rely on them.  You can always  create your own repos, add other users repos, etc, etc.   They just provide a very good channel for managing to the two together so that you can rely on an already existing infrastructure even if you are an independent dev.  Everyone doesn't have to go out write up a crappy version of Installer software..</p><p>Furthermore, its linux, you can always grab the source and compile it yourself, or grab a binary. You are not forced to go through those channels to obtain an application; but they are they if you like (and are smart).</p><p>Better analogy, think itunes app store, except you can create your own 'store' that people can access in exactly the same way as they access everything else.  All they have to do is add your 'store' to the list of approved stores.</p><p>The point here is that distro's do some of the approval for you, and can instill in you some confidence that the stuff is safe.</p><p>The reason it works for Linux so well is that most all of the software is free as in beer; so all of the software fits well into the architecture.  On a PC most software costs something; and the companies involved like MS are in a position where it is their job to make a profit.  They have little to gain by providing you with an easy way to install trusted free software, where do they make money by testing free software is safe?  Apple almost gets there with their recommended picks and such from their website; they just need to create a decent application to deal with it; (please for the love of god not itunes....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you do n't HAVE TO rely on them .
You can always create your own repos , add other users repos , etc , etc .
They just provide a very good channel for managing to the two together so that you can rely on an already existing infrastructure even if you are an independent dev .
Everyone does n't have to go out write up a crappy version of Installer software..Furthermore , its linux , you can always grab the source and compile it yourself , or grab a binary .
You are not forced to go through those channels to obtain an application ; but they are they if you like ( and are smart ) .Better analogy , think itunes app store , except you can create your own 'store ' that people can access in exactly the same way as they access everything else .
All they have to do is add your 'store ' to the list of approved stores.The point here is that distro 's do some of the approval for you , and can instill in you some confidence that the stuff is safe.The reason it works for Linux so well is that most all of the software is free as in beer ; so all of the software fits well into the architecture .
On a PC most software costs something ; and the companies involved like MS are in a position where it is their job to make a profit .
They have little to gain by providing you with an easy way to install trusted free software , where do they make money by testing free software is safe ?
Apple almost gets there with their recommended picks and such from their website ; they just need to create a decent application to deal with it ; ( please for the love of god not itunes.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you don't HAVE TO rely on them.
You can always  create your own repos, add other users repos, etc, etc.
They just provide a very good channel for managing to the two together so that you can rely on an already existing infrastructure even if you are an independent dev.
Everyone doesn't have to go out write up a crappy version of Installer software..Furthermore, its linux, you can always grab the source and compile it yourself, or grab a binary.
You are not forced to go through those channels to obtain an application; but they are they if you like (and are smart).Better analogy, think itunes app store, except you can create your own 'store' that people can access in exactly the same way as they access everything else.
All they have to do is add your 'store' to the list of approved stores.The point here is that distro's do some of the approval for you, and can instill in you some confidence that the stuff is safe.The reason it works for Linux so well is that most all of the software is free as in beer; so all of the software fits well into the architecture.
On a PC most software costs something; and the companies involved like MS are in a position where it is their job to make a profit.
They have little to gain by providing you with an easy way to install trusted free software, where do they make money by testing free software is safe?
Apple almost gets there with their recommended picks and such from their website; they just need to create a decent application to deal with it; (please for the love of god not itunes....)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418946</id>
	<title>Re:Does the vendor make md5 or sha1 hashes availab</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268128440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Signed hashes only assure you of the source of the files. They don't in themselves provide any assurance of trust.</p><p>In the majority of these cases, the only thing it would achieve would be that you can state with some confidence that it's definitely the fault of a particular asshat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Signed hashes only assure you of the source of the files .
They do n't in themselves provide any assurance of trust.In the majority of these cases , the only thing it would achieve would be that you can state with some confidence that it 's definitely the fault of a particular asshat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Signed hashes only assure you of the source of the files.
They don't in themselves provide any assurance of trust.In the majority of these cases, the only thing it would achieve would be that you can state with some confidence that it's definitely the fault of a particular asshat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418636</id>
	<title>download.com</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1268127180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>and many other software download sites [claim to] thoroughly test submitted applications with antiviruses. in recent times i haven't downloaded any app from them that turned out to contain any sort of malware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and many other software download sites [ claim to ] thoroughly test submitted applications with antiviruses .
in recent times i have n't downloaded any app from them that turned out to contain any sort of malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and many other software download sites [claim to] thoroughly test submitted applications with antiviruses.
in recent times i haven't downloaded any app from them that turned out to contain any sort of malware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418682</id>
	<title>"Where can you quickly find information?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268127360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420016</id>
	<title>Nuke it from orbit just to be sure</title>
	<author>PPalmgren</author>
	<datestamp>1268133240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it isn't used frequently for a specific purpose, its not a specific tool for their computer use.  Remove it and install foxit, and also install an anti-malware program and run it anyways.</p><p>Malwarebytes and Foxit are both fairly small, I don't think dialup should be an issue here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is n't used frequently for a specific purpose , its not a specific tool for their computer use .
Remove it and install foxit , and also install an anti-malware program and run it anyways.Malwarebytes and Foxit are both fairly small , I do n't think dialup should be an issue here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it isn't used frequently for a specific purpose, its not a specific tool for their computer use.
Remove it and install foxit, and also install an anti-malware program and run it anyways.Malwarebytes and Foxit are both fairly small, I don't think dialup should be an issue here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420528</id>
	<title>Re:Er</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1268135580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing you're being funny, but since you're modded "insightful"...
</p><p>I think what the OP was saying is, "I Googled it with 'malware' and other key words, but [no information about it being malware] turned up, though my suspicion remained..."  So the problem wasn't that he couldn't find information about PDF Suite at all, but rather he couldn't find enough information to determine whether the program was legitimate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing you 're being funny , but since you 're modded " insightful " .. . I think what the OP was saying is , " I Googled it with 'malware ' and other key words , but [ no information about it being malware ] turned up , though my suspicion remained... " So the problem was n't that he could n't find information about PDF Suite at all , but rather he could n't find enough information to determine whether the program was legitimate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing you're being funny, but since you're modded "insightful"...
I think what the OP was saying is, "I Googled it with 'malware' and other key words, but [no information about it being malware] turned up, though my suspicion remained..."  So the problem wasn't that he couldn't find information about PDF Suite at all, but rather he couldn't find enough information to determine whether the program was legitimate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420756</id>
	<title>check the repository</title>
	<author>Jessta</author>
	<datestamp>1268136720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well you just look for it in your distribution's package reposito...oh you're running windows..Microsoft really should have something like that.<br>I guess they'll get around to it when they're done with all those important 3D desktop effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well you just look for it in your distribution 's package reposito...oh you 're running windows..Microsoft really should have something like that.I guess they 'll get around to it when they 're done with all those important 3D desktop effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well you just look for it in your distribution's package reposito...oh you're running windows..Microsoft really should have something like that.I guess they'll get around to it when they're done with all those important 3D desktop effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31427602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31426804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31424536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31424034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_09_1933215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31422376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31424536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31422376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31424034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31421364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31426804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31423704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31427602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31420858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31419452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_09_1933215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_09_1933215.31418666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
