Clocks going back this weekend?
Oct 27th 2004, 6:20 am
#136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
[email protected] writes:
> Man Machine Interface. I thought were a software expert in a previous
> life??
I was a software engineer. I don't recall MMI, however.
> I realised that was the difference between a good watch and a not so
> good one. I had a Seiko watch for years, the glass scratched very
> easily.
I thought Seiko was supposed to make nice watches (at least at one
time--I haven't shopped for watches in a very long time).
> Yes! I wondered many times why people still buy them.
I don't know. At one time, before I knew just how hideously inaccurate
Rolex watches were, I considered buying one myself, based on the naïve
assumption that all that money went to pay for phenomenal accuracy.
Upon investigation I discovered that Rolex watches are purely mechanical
(most of them, at least?), and thus keep rotten time. I'm glad I
learned this before actually spending any money.
> You'd never get that with a standard Swiss cuckoo clock.
I'd never get it with any ordinary clock, although if one spends a great
deal of money on clocks and standards similar to those used by the NIST
and others, one can obviously achieve comparable accuracy. I don't know
of any highly accurate free-running watches, though--it's probably a
near-impossibility from an engineering standpoint.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Man Machine Interface. I thought were a software expert in a previous
> life??
I was a software engineer. I don't recall MMI, however.
> I realised that was the difference between a good watch and a not so
> good one. I had a Seiko watch for years, the glass scratched very
> easily.
I thought Seiko was supposed to make nice watches (at least at one
time--I haven't shopped for watches in a very long time).
> Yes! I wondered many times why people still buy them.
I don't know. At one time, before I knew just how hideously inaccurate
Rolex watches were, I considered buying one myself, based on the naïve
assumption that all that money went to pay for phenomenal accuracy.
Upon investigation I discovered that Rolex watches are purely mechanical
(most of them, at least?), and thus keep rotten time. I'm glad I
learned this before actually spending any money.
> You'd never get that with a standard Swiss cuckoo clock.
I'd never get it with any ordinary clock, although if one spends a great
deal of money on clocks and standards similar to those used by the NIST
and others, one can obviously achieve comparable accuracy. I don't know
of any highly accurate free-running watches, though--it's probably a
near-impossibility from an engineering standpoint.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Oct 27th 2004, 6:22 am
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
Markku Grönroos writes:
> A class mate of mine got a watch with a LCD as a present from his father
> back in midst of 1970's. It was dandy and very expensive (and accurate). The
> only problem with this pioneering device was that when the weather was very
> cold the image on display got disoriented.
I got an inexpensive Texas Instruments LCD watch in my early teens that
I kept for over a decade. It was accurately to within a twentieth of a
second per month or so, at worst. Unfortunately someone knocked it off
my wrist one day and it hit the floor, and after that it was off by
several minutes per hour, so I had to throw it away.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> A class mate of mine got a watch with a LCD as a present from his father
> back in midst of 1970's. It was dandy and very expensive (and accurate). The
> only problem with this pioneering device was that when the weather was very
> cold the image on display got disoriented.
I got an inexpensive Texas Instruments LCD watch in my early teens that
I kept for over a decade. It was accurately to within a twentieth of a
second per month or so, at worst. Unfortunately someone knocked it off
my wrist one day and it hit the floor, and after that it was off by
several minutes per hour, so I had to throw it away.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Oct 27th 2004, 8:21 am
#138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:20:39 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> Man Machine Interface. I thought were a software expert in a previous
>> life??
>I was a software engineer. I don't recall MMI, however.
>> I realised that was the difference between a good watch and a not so
>> good one. I had a Seiko watch for years, the glass scratched very
>> easily.
>I thought Seiko was supposed to make nice watches (at least at one
>time--I haven't shopped for watches in a very long time).
The watch itself was very nice, only the glass scratched very easily.
I bought it tax free in Singapore. After about 20 years the adjuster
seal started to leak, it was sent away to be replaced by a Dutch watch
place. It disappeared for more than a year and when it was returned it
wouldn't run for more than a few hours at a time. I paid more for the
repair than I paid for the watch. They wouldn't refund the repair bill
but instead sent it away again. Getting on for a year later it was
returned as not repairable. Never get a watch repaired in the
Netherlands.
>> Yes! I wondered many times why people still buy them.
>I don't know. At one time, before I knew just how hideously inaccurate
>Rolex watches were, I considered buying one myself, based on the naïve
>assumption that all that money went to pay for phenomenal accuracy.
I thought about doing the same.
>Upon investigation I discovered that Rolex watches are purely mechanical
>(most of them, at least?), and thus keep rotten time. I'm glad I
>learned this before actually spending any money.
I think Breitling watches are also mechanical???
>> You'd never get that with a standard Swiss cuckoo clock.
>I'd never get it with any ordinary clock, although if one spends a great
>deal of money on clocks and standards similar to those used by the NIST
>and others, one can obviously achieve comparable accuracy. I don't know
>of any highly accurate free-running watches, though--it's probably a
>near-impossibility from an engineering standpoint.
--
Martin
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> Man Machine Interface. I thought were a software expert in a previous
>> life??
>I was a software engineer. I don't recall MMI, however.
>> I realised that was the difference between a good watch and a not so
>> good one. I had a Seiko watch for years, the glass scratched very
>> easily.
>I thought Seiko was supposed to make nice watches (at least at one
>time--I haven't shopped for watches in a very long time).
The watch itself was very nice, only the glass scratched very easily.
I bought it tax free in Singapore. After about 20 years the adjuster
seal started to leak, it was sent away to be replaced by a Dutch watch
place. It disappeared for more than a year and when it was returned it
wouldn't run for more than a few hours at a time. I paid more for the
repair than I paid for the watch. They wouldn't refund the repair bill
but instead sent it away again. Getting on for a year later it was
returned as not repairable. Never get a watch repaired in the
Netherlands.
>> Yes! I wondered many times why people still buy them.
>I don't know. At one time, before I knew just how hideously inaccurate
>Rolex watches were, I considered buying one myself, based on the naïve
>assumption that all that money went to pay for phenomenal accuracy.
I thought about doing the same.
>Upon investigation I discovered that Rolex watches are purely mechanical
>(most of them, at least?), and thus keep rotten time. I'm glad I
>learned this before actually spending any money.
I think Breitling watches are also mechanical???
>> You'd never get that with a standard Swiss cuckoo clock.
>I'd never get it with any ordinary clock, although if one spends a great
>deal of money on clocks and standards similar to those used by the NIST
>and others, one can obviously achieve comparable accuracy. I don't know
>of any highly accurate free-running watches, though--it's probably a
>near-impossibility from an engineering standpoint.
--
Martin
Oct 27th 2004, 3:39 pm
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
Hatunen writes:
> Of course, although I knew about yjr chronometer long before that
> book was published. But that's a specialized case. These days, of
> course, longitude is determined with the use of GPS.
GPS has an extremely stringest requirement for time accuracy.
> However, to satisfy your sense of pedantry I will cheerfully
> modify my comment to "I really don't see why anyone would need
> more accuracy than that in ordinary life."
The world will never need more than three or four computers.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Of course, although I knew about yjr chronometer long before that
> book was published. But that's a specialized case. These days, of
> course, longitude is determined with the use of GPS.
GPS has an extremely stringest requirement for time accuracy.
> However, to satisfy your sense of pedantry I will cheerfully
> modify my comment to "I really don't see why anyone would need
> more accuracy than that in ordinary life."
The world will never need more than three or four computers.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Oct 27th 2004, 3:41 pm
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
[email protected] writes:
> I think Breitling watches are also mechanical???
I don't know.
The NIST is working on an atomic clock on a chip. This promises to
provide free-running wristwatches with accuracy about 100 times better
than current quartz watches. I'll probably continue to use
radio-controlled watches, though, as they are the most accurate of all.
And Rolex will simply become more and more of a joke.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> I think Breitling watches are also mechanical???
I don't know.
The NIST is working on an atomic clock on a chip. This promises to
provide free-running wristwatches with accuracy about 100 times better
than current quartz watches. I'll probably continue to use
radio-controlled watches, though, as they are the most accurate of all.
And Rolex will simply become more and more of a joke.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Oct 27th 2004, 8:39 pm
#141
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>> Of course, although I knew about yjr chronometer long before that
>> book was published. But that's a specialized case. These days, of
>> course, longitude is determined with the use of GPS.
> GPS has an extremely stringest requirement for time accuracy.
Not many GPS units take a time sync from your wristwatch though.
>> However, to satisfy your sense of pedantry I will cheerfully
>> modify my comment to "I really don't see why anyone would need
>> more accuracy than that in ordinary life."
> The world will never need more than three or four computers.
Because you can point to one erroneous statement in history, every other
sentence that follows the same structure is incorrect as well?
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
> Hatunen writes:
>> Of course, although I knew about yjr chronometer long before that
>> book was published. But that's a specialized case. These days, of
>> course, longitude is determined with the use of GPS.
> GPS has an extremely stringest requirement for time accuracy.
Not many GPS units take a time sync from your wristwatch though.
>> However, to satisfy your sense of pedantry I will cheerfully
>> modify my comment to "I really don't see why anyone would need
>> more accuracy than that in ordinary life."
> The world will never need more than three or four computers.
Because you can point to one erroneous statement in history, every other
sentence that follows the same structure is incorrect as well?
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Oct 27th 2004, 9:12 pm
#142
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:41:47 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> I think Breitling watches are also mechanical???
>I don't know.
http://www.breitling.com/en/made_by/
Digging through the bullshit reveals that they have mechanical
movements.
>The NIST is working on an atomic clock on a chip. This promises to
>provide free-running wristwatches with accuracy about 100 times better
>than current quartz watches. I'll probably continue to use
>radio-controlled watches, though, as they are the most accurate of all.
>And Rolex will simply become more and more of a joke.
Rolex attracts muggers.
--
Martin
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> I think Breitling watches are also mechanical???
>I don't know.
http://www.breitling.com/en/made_by/
Digging through the bullshit reveals that they have mechanical
movements.
>The NIST is working on an atomic clock on a chip. This promises to
>provide free-running wristwatches with accuracy about 100 times better
>than current quartz watches. I'll probably continue to use
>radio-controlled watches, though, as they are the most accurate of all.
>And Rolex will simply become more and more of a joke.
Rolex attracts muggers.
--
Martin
Oct 27th 2004, 9:33 pm
#143
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:39:10 -0500, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:
>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hatunen writes:
>>> Of course, although I knew about yjr chronometer long before that
>>> book was published. But that's a specialized case. These days, of
>>> course, longitude is determined with the use of GPS.
>> GPS has an extremely stringest requirement for time accuracy.
>Not many GPS units take a time sync from your wristwatch though.
Except the ones built into a wrist watch.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hatunen writes:
>>> Of course, although I knew about yjr chronometer long before that
>>> book was published. But that's a specialized case. These days, of
>>> course, longitude is determined with the use of GPS.
>> GPS has an extremely stringest requirement for time accuracy.
>Not many GPS units take a time sync from your wristwatch though.
Except the ones built into a wrist watch.
--
Martin
Oct 27th 2004, 10:48 pm
#144
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
"Hatunen" wrote
| However, to satisfy your sense of pedantry I will cheerfully
| modify my comment to "I really don't see why anyone would need
| more accuracy than that in ordinary life."
| Oh, a place where accuracy *is* required even in everyday life:
| the clock in a VCR.
That would be relevant if broadcasters started their programmes on time.
They usually don't. The BBC can be about 3 mins different between BBC1 and
BBC2 for programmes supposed to start at the same time.
In theory, this is why Programme Delivery Control (PDC) of video recorders
was invented. In reality, that isn't implemented property either, so in
practice one sets the video (I assume, I don't have one) for 5 mins extra
either end, and hopes.
Owain
| However, to satisfy your sense of pedantry I will cheerfully
| modify my comment to "I really don't see why anyone would need
| more accuracy than that in ordinary life."
| Oh, a place where accuracy *is* required even in everyday life:
| the clock in a VCR.
That would be relevant if broadcasters started their programmes on time.
They usually don't. The BBC can be about 3 mins different between BBC1 and
BBC2 for programmes supposed to start at the same time.
In theory, this is why Programme Delivery Control (PDC) of video recorders
was invented. In reality, that isn't implemented property either, so in
practice one sets the video (I assume, I don't have one) for 5 mins extra
either end, and hopes.
Owain
Oct 27th 2004, 11:25 pm
#145
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:33:45 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:39:10 -0500, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz)
>wrote:
>>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hatunen writes:
>>>> Of course, although I knew about yjr chronometer long before that
>>>> book was published. But that's a specialized case. These days, of
>>>> course, longitude is determined with the use of GPS.
>>> GPS has an extremely stringest requirement for time accuracy.
>>Not many GPS units take a time sync from your wristwatch though.
>Except the ones built into a wrist watch.
Cool, so if you change the time in the watch, you'll automagically
move in space too - great, that's how startrek does it!
Jim.
>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:39:10 -0500, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz)
>wrote:
>>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hatunen writes:
>>>> Of course, although I knew about yjr chronometer long before that
>>>> book was published. But that's a specialized case. These days, of
>>>> course, longitude is determined with the use of GPS.
>>> GPS has an extremely stringest requirement for time accuracy.
>>Not many GPS units take a time sync from your wristwatch though.
>Except the ones built into a wrist watch.
Cool, so if you change the time in the watch, you'll automagically
move in space too - great, that's how startrek does it!
Jim.
Oct 27th 2004, 11:34 pm
#146
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:25:39 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:33:45 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:39:10 -0500, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz)
>>wrote:
>>>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Not many GPS units take a time sync from your wristwatch though.
>>Except the ones built into a wrist watch.
>Cool, so if you change the time in the watch, you'll automagically
>move in space too - great, that's how startrek does it!
Beam me, up Jim.. er Dr Who!
--
Martin
>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:33:45 +0200, [email protected] wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:39:10 -0500, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz)
>>wrote:
>>>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Not many GPS units take a time sync from your wristwatch though.
>>Except the ones built into a wrist watch.
>Cool, so if you change the time in the watch, you'll automagically
>move in space too - great, that's how startrek does it!
Beam me, up Jim.. er Dr Who!
--
Martin
Oct 28th 2004, 12:45 am
#147
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:39:10 -0500, Miguel Cruz wrote:
> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hatunen writes:
>>> Of course, although I knew about yjr chronometer long before that
>>> book was published. But that's a specialized case. These days, of
>>> course, longitude is determined with the use of GPS.
>> GPS has an extremely stringest requirement for time accuracy.
>
> Not many GPS units take a time sync from your wristwatch though.
>
>>> However, to satisfy your sense of pedantry I will cheerfully
>>> modify my comment to "I really don't see why anyone would need
>>> more accuracy than that in ordinary life."
>> The world will never need more than three or four computers.
>
> Because you can point to one erroneous statement in history, every other
> sentence that follows the same structure is incorrect as well?
>
> miguel
It does in Mixi's Book Of Truth.
--
Tim C.
> Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hatunen writes:
>>> Of course, although I knew about yjr chronometer long before that
>>> book was published. But that's a specialized case. These days, of
>>> course, longitude is determined with the use of GPS.
>> GPS has an extremely stringest requirement for time accuracy.
>
> Not many GPS units take a time sync from your wristwatch though.
>
>>> However, to satisfy your sense of pedantry I will cheerfully
>>> modify my comment to "I really don't see why anyone would need
>>> more accuracy than that in ordinary life."
>> The world will never need more than three or four computers.
>
> Because you can point to one erroneous statement in history, every other
> sentence that follows the same structure is incorrect as well?
>
> miguel
It does in Mixi's Book Of Truth.
--
Tim C.
Oct 28th 2004, 1:44 am
#148
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
Rolex attracts mugs.
--
Tim C.
--
Tim C.
Oct 28th 2004, 2:28 am
#149
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:44:08 +0200, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Rolex attracts mugs.
that too ;-)
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Rolex attracts mugs.
that too ;-)
--
Martin
Oct 28th 2004, 3:07 am
#150
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:41:47 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>[email protected] writes:
>>>I think Breitling watches are also mechanical???
>>I don't know.
> http://www.breitling.com/en/made_by/
>
> Digging through the bullshit reveals that they have mechanical
> movements.
>>The NIST is working on an atomic clock on a chip. This promises to
>>provide free-running wristwatches with accuracy about 100 times better
>>than current quartz watches. I'll probably continue to use
>>radio-controlled watches, though, as they are the most accurate of all.
>>And Rolex will simply become more and more of a joke.
> Rolex attracts muggers.
Excellent
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:41:47 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>[email protected] writes:
>>>I think Breitling watches are also mechanical???
>>I don't know.
> http://www.breitling.com/en/made_by/
>
> Digging through the bullshit reveals that they have mechanical
> movements.
>>The NIST is working on an atomic clock on a chip. This promises to
>>provide free-running wristwatches with accuracy about 100 times better
>>than current quartz watches. I'll probably continue to use
>>radio-controlled watches, though, as they are the most accurate of all.
>>And Rolex will simply become more and more of a joke.
> Rolex attracts muggers.
Excellent
