The term is "lede" not lead. Try a google search for "buried the lede."
Paramount is not happy with Star Trek currently.
Star Trek: Nemesis is looking at the weakest opening numbers of any Star Trek film in the franchise's history.
Enterprise has the lowest ratings of any Star Trek series. This is extremely bad as they need to recoup all the money they spend (almost $2 million per episode) in anticipation of syndication. That is all that matters to Paramount - how much they can strip the series for later.
The article is strangely misrepresentative of the current situation with the francise and really sounds like it was spoonfed by Rick Berman to the reporter, who is trying to justify his job in light of Paramount's current unhappiness.
That is how "the outside world works" as you put it.
There are so many serious problems with that article that it is hard to take it seriously.
First of all, it refers to Rick Berman as the "new" honcho of Star Trek. Huh? He has been the honcho for more than a decade.
Second, it "buries the lede." That is a journalism phrase to indictate that the most important element of the story has been pushed to the bottom. At the end of the article you will find that "Enterprise" is the lowest rated Star Trek show in history, achieving one third of the ratings of Voyager. And Voyager's ratings were always quite low.
Sometimes an editor gets an idea for an article and it remains despite the article no longer representing the headline. The headline wants you to believe Star Trek is continuing to be lucrative for Paramount, but when you read the article you begin to scratch your head. The box office chart is not adjusted for inflation and if it was, you'd see each movie seems to do basically less worldwide box office with each iteration.
Etc etc
I Liked When the Visitors Turn Out to Be Lizards
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Oh, wait, that was "V."
Spielberg Did Not Write This
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Steven Spielberg did not write this. Leslie Bohem is the driving force behind the project - Steven Spielberg is the "brand," if you will.
I think it was a fine series. The writing was often subtle and thoughtful - a rarity on television these days.
Would you rather let the "bad guys" have it and not know about it?
The argument against supressing such information just never holds up, because it is the public dissemination of such information that cajoles companies such as Microsoft to publish security fixes.
Even so, Microsoft is still too slow to address security flaws and does an exceedingly poor job of communicating them to the public.
On the flip side, there are some strange people who collect the various thousands of different AOL discs, like people collect baseball cards or comic books.
FYI, just in case anyone did not know, Disney is embroiled in a massive lawsuit over its use of Winnie the Pooh. Basically, they want to keep the billion dollars they have made in Pooh merchandise and films and not cough up to the estate that originally owned the rights (Disney says they meet their agreed upon obligations).
Have you noticed that since Gene Roddenberry's death the franchise has truly suffered?
Sure, the showrunners bristled at Gene's humanist view and various objections to darker themes - but sure enough, since his death the franchise has continually become less-and-less "beloved."
There are so many elements that ignore Roddenberry's view in Enterprise that I wonder if it is the first show that is hardly "Star Trek" at all?
If you are wondering where the archetypal "searching for humanity" character is on this show, it is reportedly Captain Archer's dog Porthos.
After having his brain advanced 1,000,000 dog years, Porthos will become an ensign and have to grapple with an Earth that does not grant individual freedoms to dogs. Look for episode "Man's Best Friend" where Porthos is deemed the propery of Starfleet and Archer must argue that Porthos deserves to makes his own choices.
And don't forgot the D.C. Appeals Court decision from last week. This is part of the "competition" to DSL that is sufficient to let the phone companies not line-share.
Notice how the "competition" is driving prices down?
Did you know that it is illegal for a public company to have that much on hand and not pay dividends to shareholders?
Apparently there is some murkiness to get around this for Microsoft. The reason they don't want to pay dividends are the huge tax implications for those that are own massive amounts of stock (read: Bill Gates, Steve Balmer...)
There needs to be a way to differentiate beteween advertising and what is not advertising.
Is every statement by every executive of a company advertising?
I get the sense you'd say "yes" which is easy to do, but not an answer that can really be argued with. Obviously, not every utterance by a company is advertising.
Slashdot Mirror
Strip means to syndicate. Weekend box office estimates are in by Sunday morning.
Your rhetoric makes it difficult to talk to you.
You seem to be very angry.
The term is "lede" not lead. Try a google search for "buried the lede."
Paramount is not happy with Star Trek currently.
Star Trek: Nemesis is looking at the weakest opening numbers of any Star Trek film in the franchise's history.
Enterprise has the lowest ratings of any Star Trek series. This is extremely bad as they need to recoup all the money they spend (almost $2 million per episode) in anticipation of syndication. That is all that matters to Paramount - how much they can strip the series for later.
The article is strangely misrepresentative of the current situation with the francise and really sounds like it was spoonfed by Rick Berman to the reporter, who is trying to justify his job in light of Paramount's current unhappiness.
That is how "the outside world works" as you put it.
There are so many serious problems with that article that it is hard to take it seriously.
First of all, it refers to Rick Berman as the "new" honcho of Star Trek. Huh? He has been the honcho for more than a decade.
Second, it "buries the lede." That is a journalism phrase to indictate that the most important element of the story has been pushed to the bottom. At the end of the article you will find that "Enterprise" is the lowest rated Star Trek show in history, achieving one third of the ratings of Voyager. And Voyager's ratings were always quite low.
Sometimes an editor gets an idea for an article and it remains despite the article no longer representing the headline. The headline wants you to believe Star Trek is continuing to be lucrative for Paramount, but when you read the article you begin to scratch your head. The box office chart is not adjusted for inflation and if it was, you'd see each movie seems to do basically less worldwide box office with each iteration.
Etc etc
Oh, wait, that was "V."
Steven Spielberg did not write this. Leslie Bohem is the driving force behind the project - Steven Spielberg is the "brand," if you will.
I think it was a fine series. The writing was often subtle and thoughtful - a rarity on television these days.
For some reason, my SlashDot recording preferences are off. It keeps thinking I am really into TiVo articles.
What does that tell you?
That everyone hates their PC?
The information was already out there.
Would you rather let the "bad guys" have it and not know about it?
The argument against supressing such information just never holds up, because it is the public dissemination of such information that cajoles companies such as Microsoft to publish security fixes.
Even so, Microsoft is still too slow to address security flaws and does an exceedingly poor job of communicating them to the public.
It's too bad the many talented folks on DS9 were let go to work on so many great other shows after the show ended.
Of course, the rich tapestry that was DS9 probably threatened Brannon and Rick and thus we ended up with Voyager and Enterprise.
Everything the FCC has been doing under Michael Powell is pro-merger, pro-consolidation, anti-consumer.
So, I say, what's the frequency, Michael? What's the hidden agenda here - because there obviously must be one.
That is hilarious!
On the flip side, there are some strange people who collect the various thousands of different AOL discs, like people collect baseball cards or comic books.
l /3 accd753.723,.html
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/local.pat,loca
FYI, just in case anyone did not know, Disney is embroiled in a massive lawsuit over its use of Winnie the Pooh. Basically, they want to keep the billion dollars they have made in Pooh merchandise and films and not cough up to the estate that originally owned the rights (Disney says they meet their agreed upon obligations).
Have you noticed that since Gene Roddenberry's death the franchise has truly suffered?
Sure, the showrunners bristled at Gene's humanist view and various objections to darker themes - but sure enough, since his death the franchise has continually become less-and-less "beloved."
There are so many elements that ignore Roddenberry's view in Enterprise that I wonder if it is the first show that is hardly "Star Trek" at all?
Star Trek executive producer Brannon Braga called Farscape the "whiz doodle" of sci-fi.
What does this mean?!
If you are wondering where the archetypal "searching for humanity" character is on this show, it is reportedly Captain Archer's dog Porthos.
After having his brain advanced 1,000,000 dog years, Porthos will become an ensign and have to grapple with an Earth that does not grant individual freedoms to dogs. Look for episode "Man's Best Friend" where Porthos is deemed the propery of Starfleet and Archer must argue that Porthos deserves to makes his own choices.
I am interested to hear who people think should play Supes.
Obviously, Keavu Reeves is a poor choice. But who would work well in this role?
How about Chris Klein?
I don't think there are any consumer or prosumer printers that are going to be able to utilize an 11 megapixel image at this time..?
So not much use except for uber-professionals?
What is ICANN's true motivation for this?
Read: which of their cronies are miffed that Verisign does not have this data updated properly?
We all know ICANN does not actually *care* about this.
99.99% of the population thought Enron was brilliant company and investment. Meaning? Nothing.
Thanks for pointing out that story.
And don't forgot the D.C. Appeals Court decision from last week. This is part of the "competition" to DSL that is sufficient to let the phone companies not line-share.
Notice how the "competition" is driving prices down?
Ummmm....
3. Lawyers
That's what will happen and always seems to happen. When will corporate folks look at this progression and contemplate something else?
Did you know that it is illegal for a public company to have that much on hand and not pay dividends to shareholders?
Apparently there is some murkiness to get around this for Microsoft. The reason they don't want to pay dividends are the huge tax implications for those that are own massive amounts of stock (read: Bill Gates, Steve Balmer...)
There needs to be a way to differentiate beteween advertising and what is not advertising.
Is every statement by every executive of a company advertising?
I get the sense you'd say "yes" which is easy to do, but not an answer that can really be argued with. Obviously, not every utterance by a company is advertising.
I do not agree with Nike's argument,though.