<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: correction: Mozilla, StopBadware and Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://shaver.off.net/diary/2007/11/16/correction-mozilla-stopbadware-and-google/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://shaver.off.net/diary/2007/11/16/correction-mozilla-stopbadware-and-google/</link>
	<description>noise from signal</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:05:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wladimir Palant</title>
		<link>http://shaver.off.net/diary/2007/11/16/correction-mozilla-stopbadware-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-113476</link>
		<dc:creator>Wladimir Palant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shaver.off.net/diary/2007/11/16/correction-mozilla-stopbadware-and-google/#comment-113476</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;By the way, thanks for correcting his claims about Adblock Plus and how Mozilla doesn&#039;t wish to make it a built-in feature because of Google (which he didn&#039;t say directly but implied). I am surprised that a reporter at a serious newspaper like this would publish such an absurd speculation without even trying to ask the authors of the extensions in question. Not that he had to - my blog already has an article on that topic, mentioning that including Adblock in a browser is possible but a number of huge issues needs to be solved first.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way, thanks for correcting his claims about Adblock Plus and how Mozilla doesn&#8217;t wish to make it a built-in feature because of Google (which he didn&#8217;t say directly but implied). I am surprised that a reporter at a serious newspaper like this would publish such an absurd speculation without even trying to ask the authors of the extensions in question. Not that he had to &#8211; my blog already has an article on that topic, mentioning that including Adblock in a browser is possible but a number of huge issues needs to be solved first.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

