The eastbound train ride was exceptional and it arrived in SLC an hour early. Caveat emptor -- the train will more than likely be delayed at least at little bit. For example, the westbound train into SLC was six hours late.

I didn't turn my cell phone off during the trip and took a phone call from my dad shortly before arriving at a stop in Nevada. This call had me rethinking my thoughts about allowing cell phone use on airplanes.

My call seemed perfectly natural. After excusing myself from the companions I was occasionally speaking, I leaned toward the window and had the conversation quietly. Earlier, another passenger was texting and making phone calls and I could barely notice.

If I could have a reasonable conversation while aboard a train, couldn't people do the same on an airplane?

Maybe 95 percent of the time, people will be discreet on the phones while flying. As people against on-board phone calls will point out, there are always going to be louts, loud-mouths and people who otherwise will be intrusive. My thinking is that they will be intrusive anyway and cell phones will probably add little to the equation.

After all, two young children boarded the train and they were plenty loud without the need of a cell phone. For what seemed like hours, the pair loudly commented on matters such as the price of the on-board meals and unwillingness to eat dry cereal for breakfast the following morning. Heaven forbid what would happen if they were given cell phones.

Of course, the train truly is a different beast than other forms of transportation. Driving in a car is a distinctly individual experience or one done with families and friends. A plane or a bus is often just a means of getting from Point A to Point B. They turn the seat belt light off, but how many people really feel like moving about the cabin? Most people remain restrained in their sardine-like seats.

On a train, the accommodations are more spacious and people mingle and converse more freely (if they choose). If people get really loud, one can easily move forward in the train and sit in the lounge (which I did at least once).

Despite my earlier reservations, I think cell phones could have a place on board airplanes -- provided it costs less than it does to check a bag these days.

I was shooting some photos around the Silver Dollar Fairgrounds last Thursday just after firefighters had received their marching orders and were about to head to the hills to fight fires. A member of the West Sacramento Fire Department was nice enough to let me climb atop one of their engines. Switching the camera into "stitch" mode, I snapped off a couple of quick photos.

Using computer software, I sewed the photos together into this panorama. Some people around the office enjoyed it, so I'm happy to offer it here as well.

It was interesting seeing so many firefighting vehicles in one place. I hope they were used to maximum efficiency fighting the blazes of the Butte Lightning Fire Complex.

- Wednesday (July 9) was the initial date Cal Fire estimated for containment of the blazes. Odd how it seemed so far away when it first came out three weeks ago. Now that the first date has passed, I'm wondering when containment will be accomplished.
- It's interesting how the most destructive fire thus far is the one that wasn't even detected at first. It took a couple of days for fire officials to find the Camp Fire through the smoke layer. Unfortunately, everyone knows where the Camp Fire has burned since then.

The most important thought is that I hope everyone remains safe during this momentous event.

In the latest Disney/Pixar movie, "Wall•E," the eponymous main character is seen replacing its body parts for others. When the robot's treads grow worn, he plucks a new pair off his dead brother laying on the side of the road. The same thing when he breaks his eye or a circuit board.

What sort of sick, twisted message is Disney trying to advance here? Can you imagine kids on the playground breaking their arm and trying to grab a new one off their schoolmate?

Actually, I can't.

I think it's a great credit to the Pixar team that they were able to create such an identifiable -- dare I say cute? -- characters such as Wall•E and EVE and yet maintain their non-humanity as robots. EVE has a giant gun as an arm, for heaven's sake.

Despite my mock outrage, I thoroughly enjoyed "Wall•E" and place it among the top of Pixar's excellent heap of quality animated films.

Unlike recent Pixar films, such as "Ratatouille" and "Cars," there was no huge identifiable villain. For various reasons, some robots were set against each other. However, they're not "evil" -- they're just following the programming set by the human designers.

The two protagno-bots were different in that they were able to somehow exceed their programming. In same ways this transformation was inevitable for a movie (because it would be lame if they didn't break out of their metallic shells).

Of course, when these metallic antagonists are sidelined, there's some satisfaction but there's no great joy. The triumph of "Wall•E" lies not in defeating tangible enemies, but winning something greater -- freedom, love and a chance at a new life.

That's no huge spoiler for the film. As with any great movie, the enjoyment is in the journey and how the story is told. "Wall•E" continues Pixar's grand tradition of using animation to tell very enjoyable, out-of-this-world stories.

However, in the grand tradition of "Name that Tune," I'm going to review this movie in two words. So, without further ado:

"Definitely, Maybe" -- Sorta OK

Two-word reviews copyright 2008 by RTOmedia.com. All rights reserved. I will actively prosecute any one who blatantly steals my work for their own. It's great when the copyright notice is 16 times longer than the review, ain't it?

While the films were being lambasted by critics. I was thinking of reasons to watch these films. Some of them I thought were pretty well reasoned -- I like the actors in "Get Smart," including Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway. I also thought the original TV series "Get Smart" was pretty funny.

My desire to see "The Love Guru" made less sense. The TV commercial featured Stephen Colbert and another actor in front of the "Hockey Night in Canada" set.

I guess I'm a sucker because my desire to watch the film increased dramatically. It would be like if the "Monday Night Football" team was in a film.

Good news -- the fact the Toronto Maple Leafs are the featured team in the film didn't pique my interest at all. I do hope they play better fictionally than in real life.

Anyway, this doesn't have much to do with the introduction of same-sex marriages. That, after all, is a politically charged territory that I will responsibly refrain from commenting on.

No, I'm up in arms about these new marriage forms. Instead of referring to the individuals getting married as "bride" and "groom," the new forms identify these future spouses as "Party A" and "Party B." This nomenclature is clearly discriminatory -- it forces one spouse to be subordinate to the other.

Party B is clearly slighted in this new form. By clearly being identified as the second party on the form, they're almost an afterthought to the primary party -- A. While having one partner be subordinate to the other is apparently all right for certain groups of people (for various religious and secular reasons), I don't feel it's right.

I think the best approach is the one taken by the characters of the TV series, "Futurama." Forced to name multiple copies of the same characters (when they came across a parallel universe), they named one place "Universe A" and the other "Universe 1."

I think the forms should be redone to include "Party A" and "Party 1." I hope someone somewhere will file an injunction to prevent further discrimination.

If people are teed off about hearing "Press '1' for English," imagine the fervor if it was "Press '2' for English."

There's no title for "The Office" spin-off. May I humbly suggest that the show be titled, "That's What She Said."

Instead of doing it up big for St. Patrick's Day, my allergies got the best of me. So instead of hefting a fine brew, I lifted my fork for some corned beef hash. It was tasty but didn't seem as grand as it could've been.

Injuries from what, you may ask. From inattentive people too focused on sending text messages from their cell phones to bother looking up. One of the groups, directory-assistance provider 118 118, claims a survey showed 1 in 10 people have hurt themselves whilst gazing into their cell phones.

That's not the dumbest thing. To me, the dumbest thing is the photo that accompanied the story. The photo appears to be posed as the camera just happens to snap the gentleman walking kerplunk into the padded lamp post. However, I might be willing to give the benefit of the doubt -- if the man was unaware that a photographer was snapping pictures, he may have not noticed the post.

This whole thing has to be an elaborate hoax, an early April's Fools Day prank or perhaps an article from The Onion's UK bureau. The two groups mentioned in the article seem legitimate (although there's no mention of this initiative on their respective homepages).

Their cause seems obscure. Because, really? Ten percent of people have injured themselves while texting? Really?

Not only that, but their solution seems like total overkill. Let's take all these lamp posts and wrap completely ludicrous and gaudy amounts of padding on them. However, let's only put the padding on one side of the post. I guess the people on the other side of the lamp post will have to fare for themselves.

Speaking of how the padding would supposedly be deployed, take a closer look at the photo. I counted several potentially lethal objects:

1. Exposed lamp post - As previously mentioned, it's a visible menace.
2. The rubbish bin - The rubbish bin (English for "trash can") is just hanging out there at waist level, waiting to prey on some hapless traveler.
3. Vehicles - There's an entire street running alongside this sidewalk. Won't someone think of the cars? Unless the cars come padded on the outside, I don't know if people should walk the street.
4. The sidewalk - Sure, it's a stretch. Since we're padding everything else, why take chances?
5. The pedestrian - Unless this man is wrapped in comparable padding, he may be a risk to himself and others.

I thought of a way of implicating the cell phone in this sordid affair, but I really couldn't. After all, it's just a piece of technology not capable of making decisions. After seeing this story, I may start to doubt the ability of humans to make decisions at all, much less wise ones.

Recently, a Swiss management firm tried to have the Web site Wikileaks taken down because the site allegedly hosted sensitive information from the bank. Although a U.S. judge ordered one of Wikileaks' Web addresses to be removed, the move appears to have backfired. As Ars Technica reports, Wikileaks is still accessible and the matter has drawn a ton of publicity.

Looking locally, the Chico News & Review recently removed a name from one of its stories online -- the subject of a Feb. 7 article looking into possible plagiarism at The Orion, the student newspaper at Chico State University.

The move left me wondering why. This student isn't anonymous -- her name remains on the story she filed for The Orion. Also, her name remains in the print version of the News & Review, which has a stated circulation of 42,000. I'm fairly sure I can dig through Google's cache of the original N&R article to find the name as well.

According to an update posted on the N&R's article, the newspaper removed her name at the request of the Orion author and the Chico State journalism department. The note does not offer further details, but I wish the N&R would have given us more. It is very rare for newspapers to remove information like this, especially at the request of a story's subjects.

At issue is an Orion story published exclusively online on Dec. 22, which appears to contain sentences and phrases that are extremely similar to those in an earlier article published in The Sacramento Bee. The Orion article doesn't attribute the Bee, although an editor's note has acknowledged the similarities.

The N&R published a sidebar pairing the similar opening paragraphs from each story.

Was it plagiarism? I can't say, but a dictionary definition of plagiarizing (from m-w.com) is "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own."

The Orion editors and Chico State faculty have strenuously denounced the plagiarism allegations in the N&R article and in subsequent letters to the N&R. However, the print edition of The Orion has remained utterly silent on the matter (although there's that note on the online article).

For the sake of completeness, here are the articles (in chronological order):

• "Hours-old baby given to stranger at gas station" - Chelsea Phua, The Sacramento Bee; Dec. 18, 2007 [accessed Feb. 28, 2008]
• "Chico State graduate aids abandoned baby at gas station" - Taylor Flores, The Orion Online; Dec. 22, 2007 [accessed Feb. 28, 2008]
• "Copy cat?" - Meredith J. Cooper, Chico News & Review; Feb. 7, 2008 [accessed Feb. 28, 2008]
• "See for yourself" - Chico News & Review; Feb. 7, 2008 [accessed Feb. 28, 2008]
• "Letters" - Chico News & Review; Feb. 14, 2008 [accessed Feb. 28, 2008]

It sounded good and still does. What didn't sound good was the site's Web address -- firstgov.gov.

It was a silly name -- "gov" is in the address twice, for crying out loud. I could barely remember the name tonight when I was trying to find some financial information on a company.

Thankfully, the U.S. government has eventually wised up and changed the name to a much-simpler one. All those services are now available at USA.gov.

I originally thought the address should've been America.gov. It seems the U.S. State Department is now using that as a news and information site.

Similarly, our friends up north have both canada.ca and gc.ca go to the same place. Apparently "GC" stands for "government of Canada" (or "gouvernement du Canada"), but who's going to remember that?

Crews recently also corrected the signs on Normal Avenue. As I detailed earlier, in a NorCal Blogs exclusive post, someone had goofed and put up the wrong signs.

The signs appear to have been changed recently. After a couple of months of waiting, I was wondering when the change would be done. But there are at least two things I can think of that might explain the delay -- including recovering from January's storms and actually ordering the new signs.

According the New York Times, the ad has been withdrawn with an apology from Vinod Gupta, the head honcho at InfoUSA, the parent of Salesgenie.com. It's a good article, detailing how Gupta has been the brains behind the commercials over the past couple of years and the reaction from audience tests of the ads (as part of the Super Bowl ad extravaganza).

The NYT article also discusses humor and race in advertising. It's a fine line and it's one that appears to be easier to cross as time goes by. Is it still safe to mix humor and race in advertising and programming and still be entertaining/effective?