So I drive a car with a manual transmission. That means that for the most part if I'm driving long distances on the highway, and I drive about 700 miles a week, I usually have my left hand (US driver here) at the 6'oclock position, and right hand on the gearstick, or fiddling with the radio, or just resting. Sometimes when I want to rest my left arm on the door, I switch to the 8 or 9 o'clock position.

But that's during long stretches on the highway. On local roads, as well as during heavy highway traffic, I always put both hands on the wheel (unless switching gears). Also, in bad weather (rain, snow etc), both hands are on the wheel. I unconsciously tend for the 9-3 combo rather than the 10-2 or 8-4. I think that just feels like I have more control on the wheel.

No real point besides the fact that what type of road I'm on and the traffic conditions impact this. Also when I rent a car (which are all automatic transmission), I've noticed that my right hand tends to stay on top of the gear stick, even though once in D, there are no gears to change.

Interesting tangent: Going from manual to automatic, there was a mistake I made once, adn it's one you only make once. The left foot was automatically searching for the clutch, and found a pedal. Unfortunately it was the brake pedal.. The clutch is pressed usually all the way, and the brake is lightly tapped (depending on the situation). My car came to a very sharp and abrupt stop.

Learned the lesson that time. For a time afterwards, the left leg would by all the way to the left with my left arm/elbow firmly resting on it to prevent that from occuring again. As the years have gone by, I've relaxed it a but, but still live in fear of when in a risky/accident-like traffic situation in a rental car, my instincts will kick in and my left foot will slam on the brakes again.

So I got the email in my Gmail account, which is how I've signed up for home delivery of the NYT. I'll foolishly admit that I was fooled, and called the number in the email and got the recorded message saying that the line was busy (maybe that was the whole point, now they've got my number too).

Anyway, I didn't want to lose the delivery, so I marked the email as unread so that I could address it later and logged out of Gmail.

After about 20/30 minutes when this story broke on /. and other sties, I figured I'd log back into Gmail, check my email (what you don't compulsively check email?) and delete this spam. I couldn't find it in my inbox! I checked the trash thinking I may have deleted it, but it wasn't there. Then I thought to check the SPAM folder, and sure enough it was in there, still marked as unread.

Gmail updated the spam policy to classify this specific email as spam in about 20 minutes, where as it had made it into my inbox before.

Upon reflection, it's not surprising, I'm sure a lot of users marked it as SPAM in the last 20 minutes, but still was interesting for me to note. Gmail's spam filter is usually pretty good, I NEVER even look in the spam folder (even for false positives) so this was an interesting experience. I wonder if I'd left it marked as "read" and not remarked it as "unread" if it would still have been moved out from my inbox to the spam list?

So this story is based off the CNN documentary "Black in America: Silicon Valley." I haven't seen the actual show, but CNN has been pushing it a lot the past week and showing clips from it.

One really interesting clip that I saw had an Indian who had experience with VCs and start-ups and was also a professor somewhere giving a talk to the African American entrepreneurs.

Now Asians in general, and Indians specifically I don't think are as rare in Silicon Valley and are found amongst high level executives. Additionally, this particular individual was well spoken and articulate, capable of creative thinking, didn't have a strong accent, and in other ways didn't fit the stereotype of an Indian caricature.

However the ONE thing that he said was to get a good looking white guy to be your front man when going to VCs. He said that when we wanted to get funding, he got a (admittedly very capable and accomplished) white guy to be his partner. He said that's just how things work in the Valley. The African American audience he was speaking to was very shocked by this.

The point made was that VCs look for what works. And if they see a bunch of "successful" start-up companies run by young white guys, that's what they look to fund. Plus add in the inherent bias towards good looking white guys in business who fit the common archetype (with as Dilbert says good hair).

While we're on the topic, what about women (white or otherwise)? Are VCs more likely to discount a company being led by women as they're not thought to be "techy"?

So, any thoughts form people with experience here, either for or against this argument. Do all races (not just African Americans) need Caucasian male partners to improve their chances for success.

This past episode of Saturday Night Live had a REALLY FUNNY sketch skewering Netflix and how fast they seem to be changing course and announcing new plans. It was unfortunately cut for time and didn't air, but is available on NBC's website:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/netflix-apology/1359563

It was the first thing I thought of when I read the Netflix email this morning. Very funny, apt and appropriate. Almost makes me respect SNL as being on the cutting edge again.

So I go through spurts of using Netflix. I'll have DVDs lying around for 6 months, then will go through a 3 week spurt where I watch movies and immediately return them, get the next one, etc, until life gets in the way again and the discs lie around for another 6 months.

The reason I continue to pay Netflix (and don't deactivate my account) for 6 months, during which they make money from me for no cost, is that I have a long queue, I have a HUGE library of ratings that I've put a lot of though into and which now recommends some nice movies for me.

I also like being able to see which movies in my queue are available instantly to watch.

Now, here's a few questions I have:
1) Currently my queue is about 85 deep. Only about 10-15 or so of them are available for streaming. That means the streaming selection is very limited. Is that really a good future business model?

2) Will my ratings be jointly shared across both services? I've put a lot of effort into them (it's like building a collection, same mentality) and it's one of the reasons why Netflix has gotten a monthly fee from me for months without me using any of their services. Even when I watch a movie on cable or in the theater, I now have the habit of logging into Netflix just to update my rating of that movie.

3) Will I be able to maintain a single queue of what I'd like to watch and choose the best medium of streaming/DVD based on what's available?

Frankly, if I have to maintain 2 queues and 2 rating libraries, at least one service will fast lose a customer. Right now I'm paying for the joint streaming and DVD mailing option.

That's what ran through my mind as well. And to (attempt to ) correct the poster below, I don't think that what they were getting for the BOP was transparent aluminum. That was a brand new formula, and it would take years of research to produce it. I think what they got was the normal 5 inch thick glass, and in order to compensate the vendor for it, gave them the FORMULA for transparent aluminum.

Coincidentally, ST 4 was on TV just a few days ago, and in one of life's interesting independent coincidences, I thought through that whole exchange while watching the movie. Whether they had gotten transparent aluminum, or just exchanged the formula.

So my neighbor works at the IBM facility where this is taking place, but in a completely unrelated function(it's a huge complex with a lot of people). He said that everyone is taking a forced day off on Friday when they will be taping the actual show. There's only going to be a small amount of the very top IBM brass there (supposedly even the head of this facility won't be allowed in). And that this is a HUGE secrecy issue (I'm guessing so that the results aren't leaked before the broadcast date).

My neighbor works with semiconductors and so works with a lot of dangerous chemicals and stuff. According to him, they've all been told to make sure that all their hazardous materials have been safely stored, and that (I have trouble believing this) even the IBM emergency response/hazmat teams have been told that they aren't allowed onsite and not to respond to any alarms that may be issued. That's a fairly dangerous decision if true, I'm doubtful but my neighbor stands by his statement.

Anyhoo, this is a pretty big deal apparently. More so from the Jeapordy people's end I'd guess since I don't think IBM has anything related to this project that they'd be that paranoid about keeping secret.

I have a similar opinion as the GP, but am willing to admit that I am not very imaginative and am probably missing a whole lot of uses for the IPAD.

Since you have so strongly stated that there are many other uses, could you provide some examples, so that I can evaluate myself whether or not the IPAD is a useful device (for myself and others, who may have different needs)?

I considered whether or not to reply to your message, but then decided I would so that I'm not considered a shill. Please look at my ID and comment history, I'm not a newspaper shill/employee. I was sharing my genuine experience.

However, for me, the payment isn't about internet access, but news generation. Good news requires reporters, bureaus, editors, equipment, etc. That requires money. And being a foreigner to the US, I find the quality of analytical and insightful news in the US abysmal. So it needs to be supported somehow, for the good of society in general in my opinion. And that's why I subscribe.

I'm probably a minority dwarfed by free-loading readers, but free online NYT access led me to buy a full 7-day a week subscription to the paper.

I used to (and still do) go to Google News for my daily news digest (one of many sources I'd visit). Over time, I noticed that many of the stories I was interested were from either the NY Times or the LA Times. Furthermore, I noticed that for stories I'd read on many sites linked to from Google News, the NY Times (and LA Times) versions were regularly better written and more informative in my opinion.

Due to this (and the fact that I live in the suburbs of NYC) I started to regularly read the full paper online on the NYT website. After a few months of this, I decided that I found this quality reporting valuable, and worth supporting. Furthermore, I relocated a little further away from the city and was now commuting by train instead of by car. So I then decided to by a subscription. Now I have the paper delivered every day, and they have me as a full, loyal subscriber. All because of the free online access they provided.

But for everyone of me, there are probably a lot of free-loaders.

It's great that you'd like to tinker around and play with stuff at home. You may learn some things, and it will definitely present with some interesting engineering problems. But true scientific R&D, where you discover something new, forget about it for the most part.

The only domains where a lone tinkerer can still make an impact and "discover" something new is in pure math, or algorithmic research. And even there, it's a rare thing.

The days of the lone researcher are long since past, if they ever really existed in modern history. Sure during the Renaissance and through the 1800s and early 1900s a lone researcher could discover/invent something new. However, even during the latter part of the aforementioned time period, the individuals in questions (Maxwell, Faraday, Watt, Bell, etc) often had years/decades of experience and/or education in the fields they made discoveries in. And the myth of the lone inventor during this latter part wasn't really true, for example Edison had a large lab full of employees for his research.

In the contemporary time period, it's HIGHLY unlikely (I'm just reluctant to say impossible). All the low level hanging fruit in most fields has been mined. There's a reason that PhDs take a long time, there's a lot to learn and catch up on. Also, most discoveries, especially in basic science ( Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy) require lots of expensive capital equipment and labs to do. And often, it's not just one scientist, but an entire team of collaborators working on a problem from many different angles.

Now, there may be some interesting inventions/engineering solutions a lone inventor can PERHAPS come up with, but they wouldn't be new scientific discoveries. Also, as another refinement of my point, there are some things an individual can still do, like say perhaps discover a new species, but not in their backyard (unless you live in Brazil). Even then, you need a commitment of resources and time to explore the still hidden parts of the world, in the rainforest, or deep under the sea.

So, while the concept of the lone scientist is romantic, exciting and inspiring, in the modern era it's unrealistic in my opinion.

It's not just the airline bean counters who are worried about this. I'm being directly affected. I was in Europe for work, and was supposed to fly back to the US last Sun. I've been stuck here since. I'm quite desperate to get back home and back to my life.

It may seem cool to be stuck in Europe, but in actuality it's not. It feels semi-prison like in that I'm stuck in a place (albeit a very nice, historical and cultural one) and unable to get home. Things are going on at work, with friends, family and I'm all the way over here spending money like crazy because everything costs more when traveling (hotels, meals, phone calls, hotel internet charges, etc). I'm just lucky because I was traveling for work and can expense. I've met others here who aren't so lucky (one forms a sense of camaraderie with other stranded passengers on meets).

And it's a lot of other industries and businesses too. The world is incredibly interconnected.

The main complaint isn't from some bean counters trying to override safety. It's that a blanket ban is just unrealistic and misinformed. There has to be somewhere between NO FLIGHTS and NORMAL. What is it? Are there safe corridors? Are there certain types of planes that can fly? Are there certain elevations? Noone knows, and worse yet, noone is really tracking the ACTUAL ash cloud, it's all just computer models predicting. Let's see where the damned thing actually is.

Those are some of the complaints the airlines, and now us passengers who've been glued to the news for almost a week, are wondering.

The fact that so many flights flew ok yesterday indicates that the whole situation wasn't carefully thought through. Look, I'm all for putting safety first. If there is a good chance I'll die flying, I'll agree to be stuck in Europe for another month until it's safe. But, please can we first make sure it really is that dangerous?

Reading about that kill switch, I'm reminded about the quote from Jurassic Park about how Life always finds a way. I'm not sure that say 20-30 years post development when we may need a kill switch that it'll still work. Because things probably won't go haywire to the point of needing a kill switch right away. And even if they do, if the problems get worked out and these things become more common, I don't know if the kill switch tech will be updated with each iteration to account for possible evolutionary changes and adaptations.