In this journal, I'm collecting what I consider the "best of" Slashdot comments.

I've long wished that there was a way to browse all the really good comments, across all articles. So here's my poor attempt at collecting the comments that, to steal a joke from This is Spinal Tap, you'd see if you could browse at +6.

Feel free to nominate comments you think should be "+6" by replying to this journal.

(Score:6, Funny):
Approved by two layers of penguins

(After four days of waiting, this was rejected as an article submision. Go figure. Guess it's not as interesting as How to Handle an Internet Outage)

MAPILab.com has reverse engineered the (according to Microsoft) "state-of-the-art" new spam filter in Microsoft Outlook 2003. And if Microsoft is to be believed, the state of the art is unintentionally hilarious. Read the article for what Microsoft thinks is effective spam filtering -- NON-adaptive filters -- and don't forget the extra spam-checking heuristics, some merely mis-implemented, some just incomprehensibly bizarre. (And then, be glad you've got SpamBayes.)

Trust me. If you know anything about spam or programming, this is hilarious.

Here's a dummy entry for anyone wanting to comment on

• My post on teaching via Slashdot or
• on Multi-Level-/Distributed/Bacterial Learning or
• my very incomplete post on free texts and tutotials

I'll add more ideas here if interest is shown any of these subjects.

I posted this in Belkin Routers Route Users to Censorware Ad, here, but I wanted to keep a copy here as well.

I also sent a copy to Belkin.

In response to my letter of indignation to Belkin, I received the same form letter many of you have received, signed by

Kannyn MacRae,
Business Unit Manager, Networking
Belkin Corporation

The letter makes it clear that Belkin still doesn't get it. The letter isn't an apology, it's an explanation, an excuse for Belkin's reprehensible conduct, and it's full of spin - that's the polite way of saying misinformation, which is the polite way of saying lies.

The letter begins by claiming that "a group of privacy advocates have targeted Belkin Routers". That's not the case at all - a single user posted an explanation of Belkin's router's hijacking, and asked if anyone knew any more about it, in the usenet group news.admin.net-abuse.email. No group was involved, and there was no targeting.

The letter continues with a claim that "[t]he Parental Control registration page is not spam, adware or spyware. It is part of the setup process of the router. It does not "hi-jack" the browser." It is, apparently, part of the set-up process, but that's spam in and of itself: the user hasn't purchased Belkin's "Parental Control", but in the process of installing what he has purchased, the user is forced to sit through an advertisement for another Belkin product, whether or not the user has requested this advertisement. That's the essence of spam.

(And yes, I know that businesses like to claim that unsolicited advertisements are not spam if there is a "pre-existing" relationship with the customer, but that's bunk. Buying a product does not involve an implicit agreement to surrender my time to the manufacturer.)

Even if you're willing to buy [corrected 9 Nov 2003] the argument that installing a product should be made more complicated and time-consuming by subjecting you to advertising, the reason that Belkin's received so much unfavorable publicity is not a one-time ad at install. The problem is the ads repeat indefinitely, every eight hours, until you, the user - Belkin's valued customer - takes some action to make them stop. And this is the same as he sneering spammer who sends you unsolicited email with a "click here to opt out" link. Not only does it steal your time, it steals more of your time before you can make it go away.

The letter goes on to state that "nor does Belkin have the ability to advertise to our customers using our routers as a conduit."

Wait a second, lady. This whole brouhaha started because Belkin continues to use its routers as a conduit to deliver customers to its ad for "Parental Control" every eight hours. If your routers didn't have that ability, we wouldn't all be telling you why we're not going to buy Belkin products anymore. This is a blatant lie, and an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading it. The page the router delivers users to is an ad. It's a solicitation to do additional business with Belkin.

The letter also claims that "[i]f a customer clicks "No Thanks" on the first prompt, the for Parental Control signup will no longer appear." Not entirely true. Belkin Manager Eric Deming admitted in a usenet post (since cowardly cancelled, but mirrored here) that clicking "No Thanks" won't work for users behind firewalls. It also appears that the "No Thanks" gets reset if the router is reset, and anecdotal evidence suggests that the (low) quality of Belkin's routers makes resetting rather more usual than it should be - possibly as often as every 20 minutes.

The letter ends on a surreal note, "[the Belkin advertisement web page] is not a browser pop-up, this means that the Parental Control web page will only be displayed if the user opens the browser". Huh? It's not a browser pop-up, because it's only displayed in the browser? Perhaps Ms. MacRae is trying to distinguish Belkin's sneakiness from pop-under sneakiness, but that fact of the matter is, the advertisement is a web page and it appears in the user's web browser.

What the letter needed to have said, and didn't, was that

• Belkin made a serious ethical mistake, by producing a product that intentionally failed to meet its specification,
• in order to force users to sit through unsolicited advertisements,
• while silently discarding legitimate user message traffic,
• in a manner that could jeopardize the security of, and cause legal liability to (think HIPAA), Belkin's customers.

What it needed further to have said, and did not, is that

• Belkin understands that this was a serious ethical lapse,
• that Belkin apologizes for abusing the trust of its customers,
• that those responsible for planning, implementing, and authorizing this indencency have been sanctioned or fired,
• that Belkin undertakes never to do this, or anything similar again,
• and will design a compliance plan to ensure it never happens again.

But you won't see any of that in Belkin's letter, because Belkin still does not get it.

And since Belkin doesn't get it, all potential customers should make sure not to get any Belkin products (even though I expect you'll be able you'll find a number of free routers in the trash of any companies serious about security).

Today is the 2nd anniversary of my (so far first and only) heart attack.

Here's to living on borrowed time.

I submitted this as an article; of course, it was rejected. So I'm posting it as my first "journal".

Emusic.com, which I first heard about in a Slashdot comment, and which I strongly promoted on Slashdot for its DRM-free, "unlimited" downloads of quality MP3s for a low ($9.99-14.99) monthly subscription price, has significantly changed its policies.

Emusic.com has been acquired by Dimensional Associates LLC, which is either going to brilliantly leverage its investment, or (I suspect) kill the golden goose.

Beginning 8 November 2003, will end "unlimited" downloads (they actually limited it at about 2000 tracks per month) in favor of a new teired pricing plan:

• $9.99 for 40 tracks per month (25 cents per track)
• 14.99 for 65 tracks per month (23 cents per track)
• or, supposedly for current subscribers only, $50 for 300 tracks per month (17 cents per track)

While these rates are still significantly less than iTunes, BuyMusic, or the new Napster, it wasn't the rate per se that made emusic so attractive. What made emusic work for me was paying a single set rate, and knowing that I didn't need to worry about losing out if I downloaded a dud, because a dud only cost me the time to download it. If I didn't like it, I'd just download something else.

The other virtue of emusic was to open up classical music for me: not only didn't I have to worry about downloading a bad rendition, I was also able to build up a large collection of classical, exploring different style or different renditions of the same composition.

Being limited to 40 or 65 tracks (from three to six albums) per month, I'll have to start worrying: is this album worth downloading, or should I use my limited downloads for something else?

In the year I've been with emusic, I've probably downloaded an average of 500 tracks per month, paying $9.99 per mobth to do so, for an average track price of two cents. I can understand why emusic would want more than two cents per track. But I can't justify $50 per month -- $600 per year -- for that, I might as well get the cable tv I've successfully avoided for years.

At $9.99 per month, it's 25 cents per track, but I don't have that same freedom to take the risk of downloading a dud album.

So it's likely I'll be ending my subscription. I won't be going to KaZaa; I want to get my music legally. What does Slashdot suggest as a replacement for emusic? What do you think a fair and sustainable price per track is?