We get tons and tons of letters

As always, my inbox is flooded with mail from my dear readers. I seldom get around to answering, except when I don't have a better column idea.\nAnyhow, "Brad" writes:\nThe bookmakers in Vegas have laid down odds on "Survivor: Australian Outback," which premieres after the Super Bowl. But it's illegal to place bets on it, because the outcome of the show is already known -- exclusively to the producers and network executives. And they keep it under ironclad secrecy so as to not diminish viewer interest. Is that a crock, or what?\nYes, it's a crock, no question about it. Take the time-honored route and bet on sporting events instead. It just makes sense. Putting down $200 against the Clippers on any given night means an easy two, three dollars. Betting on a show where the only information you have about the contestants is what the network selectively leaks sounds like a risky gamble. Oh wait, we're talking about gambling.\n"Leslie" writes:\nI saw the movie "Antitrust" the other day. Before I attempt to lobotomize myself with gardening shears, I have a single question I pray is answered: Why? For the love of God, why?\nFor those of you not familiar with the premise of the film, Tim Robbins stars as a thinly veiled Bill Gates. He recruits computer programmer Ryan Phillippe to work on a global communications initiative. Phillippe, who equates intellectual property rights with the black shirts of 1920's Italy, discovers that the Gates character kills for programming code to get ahead in business.\nBasically, Hollywood is doing us an invaluable service here: The whole federal antitrust suit is being explained for the mentally impaired. That's right, boys and girls, Bill Gates is a bad man. He has unsavory business practices, like bludgeoning to death all those who would oppose him. \nIt ends with Phillippe dramatically proclaiming that "human knowledge belongs to the world." So the film also basically shills for the likes of Napster and Linux. I remember having read something in the Constitution, a passage that specifically authorizes Congress to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."\nBut no matter, I guess. That old document just isn't hip to the times. I tried to explain the open source philosophy to the nice people at the theater, but for some reason they wouldn't let me in for free. \n"Jack" writes:\nWe live in a country supposedly founded upon the ideals of individuality and creativity. But all of these prudish moralists are badmouthing the fine people at the Grammy Awards for nominating Eminem for best album. No one bats an eye when bubblegum commercial phonies like the Backstreet Boys ring up nominations. At least Eminem has a smidgen of artistic integrity. What is this, Joe McCarthy and the "Red scare" all over again?\nEnough ink has already been spilled on this subject. But I for one am glad the nice people at Mars Inc. changed Plain M&Ms to Chocolate M&Ms. It was a much-needed makeover, and I savor the delicious chocolate taste all the more.