Instruct: Classify a given review into positive or negative sentiment.
Query: Good ideas regurgitated poorly from better thinkers

I read part of the first half back in college. Going through it again I find myself having the same reservations, Baudrillard's style is overly dependent on these really repetitive, almost cheekily nihilistic assertions. And while his in-your-face style is provocative, ultimately, it just amounts to an aweful lot of empty rhetoric about how totally empty everything is. A lot of it just seems like stuff he read and regurgitated from Deleuze and Foucault and then mixed up with his own sense of cheap posturing. Also, the second half feels incredibly dated with its cheap analysis of late cold-war tensions and half-assed attempts to synthesize a 4th grade level understanding of genetics and emerging cybernetic jargon into his broader system of thought, or anti-system of thought, or whatever it is he thinks he's doing here. If your going to read it, take it with an especially big grain of salt.