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.

My colleague, Leland Gordon, is captaining this year's team. He writes far more eloquently about the fundraiser.

I know it's a little late in the game, but if you would like to make a tax-deductible pledge before the event -- Please click here.

I'll do my best to post an update after the event Saturday.

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?

Sure, the game was slow going after the New York Giants scored a field goal in the first quarter and the New England Patriots answered with seven points just barely into the second quarter. The fourth quarter definitely paid for the price of admission as the Giants surge into the lead only to let it slip from their fingers with just minutes left in the game.

Down four points, Giants quarterback Eli Manning delivered one of the most outstanding Super Bowl plays I've seen. I would try to describe it, but watching a clip would do it much more justice.

The Patriots blitzed Manning and had their hands on his jersey. Pulling away from the eager tugs of his opponents, Manning is able to scramble into the open briefly. Instead of letting the chaos wash over him, Manning actually throws the ball downfield into the arms of his receiver.

I'm sure you can get better recaps elsewhere on the 'net. However, when people are screaming "Oh, my God" repeatedly over a play, it's worth mentioning.

If you want a recap of the commercials, TV Squad is one of the dozens of places with mini reviews and embedded videos.

My bottom line -- it's outrageous that people pay $2.7 million for 30 seconds of exposure, especially when the ads are mostly dissatisfying. Here's what I thought was the best and the worst:

The best: I definitely liked the NFL's Super Ad, much for the reasons detailed by TV Squad. Essentially, it details how future NFL player Chester Pitts was bagging groceries in San Diego when another football player discovered him and encouraged him to try out for college ball. Although Pitts said the only thing he played before college was the oboe, he turned out to be a good football player.

What an awesome commercial with a sweet rags-to-riches story. It definitely had a fairy tale feel to it, leading many to ask if the story was real. I said it has to be because I knew the months of promotion for the NFL Super Ad competition where people were asked for vote for the best story from NFL players.

I also enjoyed Coca-Cola's duel between parade balloons Underdog and Stewie Griffin. It was all the sweeter that periennial loser Charlie Brown finally won.

Although the commercial was played for laughs, part of me was reminded of the injuries when floats have gotten out of control in the past (which is why there are much stricter rules in place at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade).

The worst: Let's say you have a Web site in business to generate business leads, somehow. What better way to get the word out than buying at least $5 million of commercials. One of the commercials was pretty bad -- it was a cartoon (!) featuring pandas having problems selling their bamboo furniture. However, thanks to this Web site (which I'm deliberately forgetting the name of), they were able to save their business.

This commercial completely rubbed me the wrong way. Not only was it the extremely rare cartoon promoting a business Web site, the whole premise of pandas selling bamboo furniture and speaking with seemingly stereotypical Asian accents struck me as vaguely racist or at least disrespectful. It seemed like one step away from making chopstick buck teeth and saying "Me so sorrie."

I can't say the Asian accents were faked because I don't know who the voice talent was, but the whole endeavor didn't seem sincere to me.

While Go Daddy may have been able to successfully promote its domain-registration business with inexplicably popular commercials, I don't know if this other company will be able to see similar success.

I skipped the pregame show (which was apparently 18-hours long, give or take a day). It's usually a lot of fluff and my disinterest grew when I heard that FOX News was producing this argueably sports-oriented program (so they could tout their Super Tuesday election coverage).

Having FOX cameras spot the celebrities in the stands was fun for a minute, but I always wonder why they have to be Hollywood celebrities. Just once I would like Joe Buck to say, "There's Nobel Laureate Gerhard Ertl. He won the 2007 Nobel for his contributions in chemistry."

I know not to hold my breath.

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers gave a fun performance that definitely had a lot of people at my party singing along. I just wish the NFL would showcase some younger talent.

Also, it would be nice to see another female performer on the halftime stage. Heck, FOX Sports included a woman in its out-of-place, yet nice, tribute to the Declaration of Independence (which addressed a beef I had the last time).

Since "the incident" in 2004, the NFL must follow an extremely rigid set of rules when selecting the halftime show. The rules are all geared to avoid another "malfunction" of the sort that so disrupted our state of affairs. To the best of my knowledge, they are:

1. No breasts -- No breasts, no problems. Right?
2. Performers must be on Social Security -- All right, they're not 65, but they're close. The average age of performers is 59
3. Performers must be dudes -- See rule 1.
4. Must not have reputation for taking clothes off, at least not recently.

In the end, the Super Bowl is supposed to be about a game and it succeeded this year.

Some gripe that two teams with one and two losses shouldn't vie for the championship. I really didn't have a problem with how the BCS game was determined until after this year's season of upsets and constant turnover in the rankings.

In a season that didn't make a lot of sense, the series of equations and computations that the BCS uses to determine the rankings didn't really add up either. Perhaps, it's a matter of the old programming axiom GIGO -- "Garbage In, Garbage Out."

It didn't start with the BCS, the bowl system that preceded it is a little goofy. A Yahoo! Sports commentator pointed out earlier that college football doesn't need the bowls, but it's in the best interests for the bowl organizers to keep the system.

Ultimately, the BCS and the bowls are an incomplete fit for college football and an unsatisfying conclusion to what is usually a fun season of sports.

The current system is like a Waldorf salad -- full of great tastes like apple and walnuts, but then topped off with mayonnaise. After this year, a better recipe is needed.