|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 24, 2009 1:08:46 GMT -4
Using the time and date site, you would need to start with December 31st because that is day zero. January 1st would be day 1, as it is 1 day after December 31st, and January 31st would be day 31 as it is 31 days after December 31st. A programmer might well consider Jan 1 to be day 0, as the first element of an array is commonly indexed 0. For similar reasons, it would be appropriate to number Jan 1 as day 0 if one is measuring (integral) days elapsed since midnight on Jan 1, since this value will be 0 until midnight on Jan 2. This is essentially how we measure age (a child in its first year is 0 years old) and why years numbered 19xx are in the 20th century, etc. But the accepted standard in this case is to count ordinal days, not days elapsed.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Sept 24, 2009 2:54:44 GMT -4
On the subject of Jarrah... I was asked a question of which I am unsure of the answer.
We're all aware of the copyright violations Jarrah has committed in the making of his videos, the use of footage without permission; but what about the audio? He has used popular music on a number of occasions; is that fair usage or is it another violation?
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Sept 24, 2009 3:43:59 GMT -4
It's a violation unless he has specific written permission. This usually involves paying a mechanical royalty to the appropriate body. "Fair use" doesn't apply in the same way to music, and it's much more rigorously enforced, youtube , being States based, would come under the remit of the RIAA who are vicious about this sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Sept 24, 2009 22:53:33 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by tkw251070 on Sept 25, 2009 2:38:52 GMT -4
James has added a rather well done addendum to his earlier video. It's a good video. Once again Jarrah demonstrates that attention to detail escapes him, much like his mastery of academic rigour. Off topic: I see the find of water on the moon has excited the HBs over at ZooTube. This revolves around Jarrah's claim that NASA originally did not find water in the moon rocks, then they did, and now the Indian probes have found water 'all over the moon'. Shame they do not quote this BBC article: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8273891.stmspecifically the part where NASA scientists did not believe their readings thinking their samples had become contaminated. [sic]
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Sept 27, 2009 2:18:53 GMT -4
...Jarrah's claim that NASA originally did not find water in the moon rocks, then they did... In that case, perhaps someone who posts there could ask Jarrah to explain this: National Geographic, September 1973, page 325, has a 4000-times high-magnification photo, by Dr David S. McKay and Dr Uel S. Clanton of the Johnson Space Center near Houston. The caption says: "Flowerlike iron-oxide crystals of a rusty rock (right) collected by Apollo 16 contain water, possibly from a comet, a water-bearing meteorite, or contamination in handling. Apollo's payloads of rocks and data will challenge scientists for decades." The two researchers are shown on page 322 of the magazine with other photos of Apollo samples, taken with a scanning electron microscope, and Dr McKay is mentioned in this old thread: apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1122507360&page=1#1122549649The last I heard, the Johnson Space Center was part of NASA, and I think September 1973 equates fairly well with "originally," but perhaps Jarrah knows better.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Sept 27, 2009 5:15:07 GMT -4
Comment on his latest, that is in the info for a film, is that he will be away for a while.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Oct 1, 2009 1:29:28 GMT -4
On the subject of Jarrah... I was asked a question of which I am unsure of the answer. We're all aware of the copyright violations Jarrah has committed in the making of his videos, the use of footage without permission; but what about the audio? He has used popular music on a number of occasions; is that fair usage or is it another violation? His videos are being investigated already. I assure you. I wonder who has a senior contact at the RIAA
|
|
|
Post by boozyscientist on Oct 6, 2009 8:35:21 GMT -4
There are quite a number of videos debunking Jarrah White's offerings. In addition to this video on Exhibit B, JamesBooty has also done one debunking Exhibit A www.youtube.com/watch?v=2idM04R47lwand I have done one on the same subject which got a 1-star review from Jarrah White within hours of being posted: www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8IkdZ8yzUoIn addition Astrobrant2 has done a whole series debunking hoax claims and many of these specifically address videos made by Jarrah White www.youtube.com/user/Astrobrant2Does anyone know of a page somewhere comprehensively linking to debunk videos?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 6, 2009 12:59:33 GMT -4
Personally, I'm not a big fan of using videos to argue. There's the whole "YouTube is a lousy place to argue" thing, but that's why--among other reasons--I don't bother with YouTube. If people want to have a reasonable discussion about a subject, they should use their words.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Oct 7, 2009 4:36:24 GMT -4
Personally, I'm not a big fan of using videos to argue. There's the whole "YouTube is a lousy place to argue" thing, but that's why--among other reasons--I don't bother with YouTube. If people want to have a reasonable discussion about a subject, they should use their words. YouTube is just a zoo when it comes to arguments ... but that is down to the users not the format. I think the use of video in these discussions is very valuable because is allows you to directly relate the argument you are making to the evidence you are using to back it up. Perhaps that is because I have always learned more from visual formats than anything else ... a picture really is worth a thousand words sometimes. In the case of the HBs videos it really just illustrates how little they know about their chosen subject matter, and makes is that much easier to see the holes in their arguments. Unfortunately, the way YouTube works means that by producing videos to a certain style and/or quality they instantly attain a certain status among the commenter regardless of the actual content of their work. Besides ... without YouTube how could I enjoy free, official and unrestricted access to the funniest sketches ever written.
|
|