Rurouni Kenshin TV and OVA's - Samurai story revolving around a retired samurai The TV series is 70+ episodes and has several story arcs. The OVA's (movie releases) are much more serious
95 to be exact. And about the OVA--is that what an OVA is, a movie? If so, what's Ishinshishi e no requiem, then?
How could you possibly replace Kenshin's voice? Really? They'd probably chicken out and give him a generic hero voice(ala Kakkaroto in DBZ), which would completely ruin it. You'd never find an english actor that sounded like Suzukaze Mayo.
Re:Anime as a way of learning Japanses
on
Essential Anime
·
· Score: 1
Well, that all depends on which shows you watch. I have a friend who speaks Japanese, and is also a major Rurouni Kenshin fan. He tells me his Japanese language teacher keeps getting pissed off at him for using colloquiolisms from the 1800s:) Can you imagine the looks you would get by saying things like de gozaru or oro? in modern-day Japan?
I've found myself seriously addicted to the episodes of RK. Definately have to get ahold of the OVAs when they're available here. Or, if I can't wait, get them on VHS from eBay. You can get just about the entire series+OVA+movie from eBay.
I have a friend who's going to Japan next month, and he's planning on buying every Rurouni Kenshin video he can get his hands on:)
Okay, you haven't heard of this for sure. But this is without question the best Anime show I've seen to date. RK takes place in Meiji 11 (1878), eleven years after the fall of the dynasty. The Samuri have pretty much scattered into uselessness, except for a small number of them. Himura Kenshin was a legendary samuri, the Hitokiri Battousi during the Bakumatsa (revolution). He has since sworn never to kill again and replaced his sword with a sakaba, a sword with the blade turned backwards.
The show picks up as he is travelling through Tokyo and is confronted by Kamiya Kaoru, a 17 year old master of the Kamiya Kasshin Ryu (a discipline designed to protect, not kill) whose parents have died a while back. Kenshin ends up moving in with Kaoru, and through the course of the next few episodes make a couple of other close friends--Yahiko, who becomes Kaoru's pupil; and Sano, just an all-around badass.
What makes this show so cool is definately the swordfighting--if you think DBZ fighting is neat, wait till you see samuri fighting faster than the eye can track with bladed weapons so sharp that when they cut through something, it sits there for a moment before falling apart.
I don't think theres any DVDs yet. There is one that will be released soon, but the bulk of the episodes can easily be had from Ebay. But you won't notice. I've seen most of the episodes in rm format downloaded from irc, and it's still tremendously cool. The neatest thing about it is that while it has really awesome fight scenes, the show doesn't focus on them. It actually focusses more on the relationship between Kenshin and Kaoru. And it doesn't take itself too seriously, either. In fact, it makes fun of Anime a lot by closely following the laws of anime. Be sure to check out this website for more info on the series.
Oh, and try not to watch the dubbed version. I havn't heard it yet, but there's no way you could replace Kenshin's voice properly. And if they went to some generic hero voice you'd completely miss out on the majority of Kenshin's charm.
Re:The difference between dubbed and subbed?
on
Essential Anime
·
· Score: 1
The problem with dubbing is, they almost always pick the worst possible voices to replace them with. And theres also major editing involved. You don't get the full experience with the subs, either, but they're better than dubbing.
But if that were true, then the point would be that the artists aren't being harmed at all... which I don't really agree with. I think there is a devaluation of some sort when you can get the same thing for nothing. But even if there isn't, my point is the artists are being harmed in some way. Not nearly as bad as outright theft, but certainly more than nothing.
They are wrong according to the law. Whether they are actually ethically or morally wrong is another matter, and I think that was his point. For instance, it's currently illegal for me to watch my DVD movies I have bought and payed for on my Linux box. Is it wrong? Not at all.
I am, but people keep using word definitions (stealing) to argue my point is mistaken. So, I respond in kind and post a more detailed explanation which makes their argument not work. I'm just trying to point out that this is clearly defined as Copyright infringement, not theft... but just because others can manage to call it theft they think they've won an argument.
I posted the alternate definitions because I thought Cannonball's definition was too vague. And who said anything about making myself feel better? I'm arguing that this isn't theft, it's copyright infringement because it does not follow the exact definition of theft. The lawsuits against Napster are not theft, it's copyright infringement because that's the law it's classified under. In order for it to be theft, I have to deprive the original owner of that which I am stealing, which is not happening. The music is not being taken, it's being devalued by unauthorized copying. My point is, you're being too vague and simplistic by calling it theft, we have a clearly defined law which this falls under... so call it that.
No, stealing is the taking away of someone else's property. Copying is devaluing someone elses property, which is wrong, but only a fraction as bad as stealing.
theft \Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny. (emphasis mine) From dictionary.com
The scenario you described would actually be:
espionage (sp--näzh, -nj) n. The act or practice of spying or of using spies to obtain secret information, as about another government or a business competitor.
Stealing? I think your reality check just bounced:)
Nobody's saying the artist shouldnt' be compensated for their work. And nobody's saying Napster is a perfect system; it's a great idea, but a bad implementation. But to call this "piracy" or "theft" is irresponsible. Theft is the act of depriving someone else of something in their posession. Look it up. But on Napster, or any other file sharing system, you're not taking away, you're copying. When you copy something in someone else's posession, you devalue the thing a little, and you wouldn't be a very nice person, but you're not taking anything away from anybody and therefore calling it stealing or piracy is an attempt to demonize a group of people far more than they deserve.
Therein lies the problem. The RIAA, and copyright holders, want to simplify the definition to something very bad so people will jump in to protect their "Intellectual Property." But it's just not that simple. Intellectual Property is a balancing act; you have to give the IP holders enough power over their works to make a reasonable profit, but since IP is a compromise of freedom, you have to make sure IP doesn't harm the poeple. That's what is happening now; the copyright holders are using IP as a club to beat us into submission. They've grown too powerful. And since the Internet has made IP impossible to hold without Thought Police, copyright law needs to be either seriously rethought or thrown out and rewritten.
About a year ago, some kid broke into my car and stole a bunch of CD's. He was later caught in the act of doing it to someone else and was arrested. At the time I was fairly happy that he was being punished for his crime, but now, now I realize he wasn't stealing, he was just trying to share!
No, he was stealing. He was actually depriving you of a tangeble object (a CD). Online, you can only copy; you're getting the songs for nothing, but you're not taking anything away from the original owner. All that happens is that the CD is slightly devalued because there is one more copy in existance, but it is by it's very definition not theft. Why is there so much confusion over this?
Theft is the act of depriving someone else of something in their posession. Intellectual property, however, is artificialy restricted to promote creativity. Sharing of information, or music, is natural; copyright law is a compromise of freedom in order to ensure artists have a motivation to keep creating art. But copyright law is not a natural law.
This is great. Q3Radient was one of the main reasons I have to dual boot Windows. Needless to say, I'm extatic if this thing works. Hmm... Windows' days are numbered:) I use Linux for about 99% of everything I do, and I'm working really hard to eliminate that last 1%. This just helped enormousely. Gotta love Loki:)
Re:Cool... is this the modernized Amiga?
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
POSIX compliance is only one of many things that make an OS UNIX-like... such as being even remotely recognizeably as a UNIX system. Sorry, but even though NT is a substantial improvement over Windows 9x/Me, it still suffers from the same sucky design.
There will always be music piracy, no matter how much you fight it. So, the trick is to make it not worth the effort. If music was available on a per-song basis in mp3 format through micropayments, there would be significantly less motivation to pirate than there currently is.
Guess what? It's defined as theft. Property laws are clear on that.
No, it is not defined as theft. It's defined as copyright violation, which isn't nearly as bad. In certain circumstances (and I believe this is one of them) copyright violation actually helps CD sales. It all comes down to how many people just leech off of it, and how many use it for sampling or other legitimate uses (I have no problems with ordering a CD online, and then downloading all the songs so I don't have to wait for shipping. The RIAA gets my money, I get my music--we're both happy).
You would think so. Unfortunately, this whole DeCSS thing pretty much proves that they're more interested in picking on the small-time consumers who aren't even doing anything wrong than the actual pirates.
But as far as lending DVDs is concerned, I say go ahead. There's nothing morally wrong with it any way you look at it, and even though the MPAA might want this to be illegal, doesn't mean it should be. In the ideal world, all copyrighted material should be treated like books. And even if they do pass some inane law making lending illegal, how will they ever find out? They won't. They won't ever find out, you're not doing anything wrong, so I say knock yourself out.
You don't have to buy all the latest hardware to enjoy games. Hell, I haven't upgraded my machine for a year and it can still handle most everything without being too slow. All in all, I'd rather be gaming on a PC because:
They always work, no matter how many times you get a new machine
Any game such as Quake or UT that requires fast reflexes and accuracy will be totally useless without a mouse and keyboard
A few minor upgrades will usually be cheaper than buying a whole new machine when the latest greatest console comes out and
When you do upgrade, you do not have to buy all your favorite games all over again to enjoy the new system.
Most times the PC version of a game is cheaper
You don't get any truly immersive and complex games like Half-Life on a console.
The resolution of a television sucks
Depending on the game, you can download additions such as third-party maps and mods or make your own. A console game is static without any hope of a modding community like Quake or Half-Life have.
Carpal tunnel notwithstanding, playing a game with a mouse and keyboard is a lot less stressful on the hands than with those controllers consoles always come with.
You don't have to wait two or three years to improve the performance of your games.
Consoles are normally years behind the latest PC games (Quake1&2, Tomb Raider, for instance)
The problem with that is Real Media is pretty much the only decent video codec playable under Linux. I've always wondered about that... if MPEG is an open standard, why the hell isn't there better support for it? I haven't even been able to find a decent MPEG player for Linux anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
95 to be exact. And about the OVA--is that what an OVA is, a movie? If so, what's Ishinshishi e no requiem, then?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
How could you possibly replace Kenshin's voice? Really? They'd probably chicken out and give him a generic hero voice(ala Kakkaroto in DBZ), which would completely ruin it. You'd never find an english actor that sounded like Suzukaze Mayo.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
I have a friend who's going to Japan next month, and he's planning on buying every Rurouni Kenshin video he can get his hands on :)
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Check out the Laws of Anime. Had me in stitches when I read through it :)
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
The show picks up as he is travelling through Tokyo and is confronted by Kamiya Kaoru, a 17 year old master of the Kamiya Kasshin Ryu (a discipline designed to protect, not kill) whose parents have died a while back. Kenshin ends up moving in with Kaoru, and through the course of the next few episodes make a couple of other close friends--Yahiko, who becomes Kaoru's pupil; and Sano, just an all-around badass.
What makes this show so cool is definately the swordfighting--if you think DBZ fighting is neat, wait till you see samuri fighting faster than the eye can track with bladed weapons so sharp that when they cut through something, it sits there for a moment before falling apart.
I don't think theres any DVDs yet. There is one that will be released soon, but the bulk of the episodes can easily be had from Ebay. But you won't notice. I've seen most of the episodes in rm format downloaded from irc, and it's still tremendously cool. The neatest thing about it is that while it has really awesome fight scenes, the show doesn't focus on them. It actually focusses more on the relationship between Kenshin and Kaoru. And it doesn't take itself too seriously, either. In fact, it makes fun of Anime a lot by closely following the laws of anime. Be sure to check out this website for more info on the series.
Oh, and try not to watch the dubbed version. I havn't heard it yet, but there's no way you could replace Kenshin's voice properly. And if they went to some generic hero voice you'd completely miss out on the majority of Kenshin's charm.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
They are wrong according to the law. Whether they are actually ethically or morally wrong is another matter, and I think that was his point. For instance, it's currently illegal for me to watch my DVD movies I have bought and payed for on my Linux box. Is it wrong? Not at all.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
The scenario you described would actually be:
espionage (sp--näzh, -nj) n. The act or practice of spying or of using spies to obtain secret information, as about another government or a business competitor.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Nobody's saying the artist shouldnt' be compensated for their work. And nobody's saying Napster is a perfect system; it's a great idea, but a bad implementation. But to call this "piracy" or "theft" is irresponsible. Theft is the act of depriving someone else of something in their posession. Look it up. But on Napster, or any other file sharing system, you're not taking away, you're copying. When you copy something in someone else's posession, you devalue the thing a little, and you wouldn't be a very nice person, but you're not taking anything away from anybody and therefore calling it stealing or piracy is an attempt to demonize a group of people far more than they deserve.
Therein lies the problem. The RIAA, and copyright holders, want to simplify the definition to something very bad so people will jump in to protect their "Intellectual Property." But it's just not that simple. Intellectual Property is a balancing act; you have to give the IP holders enough power over their works to make a reasonable profit, but since IP is a compromise of freedom, you have to make sure IP doesn't harm the poeple. That's what is happening now; the copyright holders are using IP as a club to beat us into submission. They've grown too powerful. And since the Internet has made IP impossible to hold without Thought Police, copyright law needs to be either seriously rethought or thrown out and rewritten.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
No, he was stealing. He was actually depriving you of a tangeble object (a CD). Online, you can only copy; you're getting the songs for nothing, but you're not taking anything away from the original owner. All that happens is that the CD is slightly devalued because there is one more copy in existance, but it is by it's very definition not theft. Why is there so much confusion over this?
Theft is the act of depriving someone else of something in their posession. Intellectual property, however, is artificialy restricted to promote creativity. Sharing of information, or music, is natural; copyright law is a compromise of freedom in order to ensure artists have a motivation to keep creating art. But copyright law is not a natural law.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Your right, the RIAA is not a corporation. The best description would probably be cartel. look it up.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
No, it is not defined as theft. It's defined as copyright violation, which isn't nearly as bad. In certain circumstances (and I believe this is one of them) copyright violation actually helps CD sales. It all comes down to how many people just leech off of it, and how many use it for sampling or other legitimate uses (I have no problems with ordering a CD online, and then downloading all the songs so I don't have to wait for shipping. The RIAA gets my money, I get my music--we're both happy).
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
But as far as lending DVDs is concerned, I say go ahead. There's nothing morally wrong with it any way you look at it, and even though the MPAA might want this to be illegal, doesn't mean it should be. In the ideal world, all copyrighted material should be treated like books. And even if they do pass some inane law making lending illegal, how will they ever find out? They won't. They won't ever find out, you're not doing anything wrong, so I say knock yourself out.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?