A self-described "spectacularly beautiful" 25-year old woman is drawing some flack for an ad she placed on Craigslist looking for a man earning at least half-a-million per year because "$250,000 won't get me to Central Park West."

Today's New York Times follows the story of the ad's provenance and the scandal that it has stirred. But being the helpful type, I am going to provide this damsel in distress (assuming it wasn't a prank) with some ideas on how to find the man of her avaricious dreams.

Money's Marlys Harris caused quite a stir a few months back when he published a piece called How to Marry a Billionaire. To infiltrate the world of the super-rich, you must be attractive, classy, cultured and have the right job: rich people, almost by definition, work extremely hard, and frequently meet their future spouses at work.

By making yourself the type of person who will be attractive to a billionaire, you are likely to make yourself the type of person would be attractive to anyone.

With Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) in the midst of acquiring online advertiser DoubleClick, the battle is beginning between the largest search company in the world and the largest e-tailer in the webosphere. I'm talking about, of course, Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN).

Amazon has long been considered the model for wringing every possible cent from every customer who enters its webspace, and in an inviting, orderly fashion. The company has made an art of forums, lists, peer reviews and tons of research to ensure that each customer can not only find what they're looking for, but find several other items of interest as well.

Some call Amazon's approach the contextual, user-engaged transaction marketplace. The bugger now is to see if Google can facilitate such interaction as it moves into non-text search areas. Up to bat first is DoubleClick. Does Google want more than a cut of each transaction as a result of a customer taking action on a DoubleClick ad? All signs point to yes. And the model it should be looking at if it is not already is Amazon.com. Well, maybe.

Breaking up is hard to do. But these days it's a little easier, thanks to a new concept -- the e-breakup -- the use of email or instant messaging to break off relationships.

As described in the Boston Globe, it looks to me like the e-breakup makes things much easier for the message sender -- the e-breakuper -- and not that much harder for the receiver --- the e-breakupee.

The e-breakuper is much better off -- saving the time spent delivering the message and facing the e-breakupee's suffering. Meanwhile the e-breakupee is a little worse off -- missing out on a last chance to see and lay a guilt trip on the e-breakuper.

There's no putting the e-breakup genie back in the bottle. And there's no doubt it's changing how relationships work.

Have you been an e-breakuper or e-breakupee? Is it better or worse?