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.