Clocks going back this weekend?
Oct 29th 2004, 7:10 am
#181
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:48:27 +0100, "Owain"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"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.
Fortunately, in America TV programs almost invariably start on
the hour or half-hour, except for NBC which has maddeningly
adopted a policy of starting the next show at :58. But I've
learned to program for it.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"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.
Fortunately, in America TV programs almost invariably start on
the hour or half-hour, except for NBC which has maddeningly
adopted a policy of starting the next show at :58. But I've
learned to program for it.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Oct 29th 2004, 7:12 am
#182
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:45:21 +0200, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Owain writes:
>> That would be relevant if broadcasters started their programmes on time.
>They do in the U.S. In fact, one of the earliest applications for
>extremely accurate (subsecond) time of day was in television networks,
>which had to closely synchronize broadcasts across the U.S., and most
>notably between the two coasts (Los Angeles and New York).
They were doing this sort of time synch long before TV. All radio
stations used to have a Western Union clock which was regulated
by a master time signal. And they were doing radio broadcasts
from the east and west coasts clear back in the 1920s.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Owain writes:
>> That would be relevant if broadcasters started their programmes on time.
>They do in the U.S. In fact, one of the earliest applications for
>extremely accurate (subsecond) time of day was in television networks,
>which had to closely synchronize broadcasts across the U.S., and most
>notably between the two coasts (Los Angeles and New York).
They were doing this sort of time synch long before TV. All radio
stations used to have a Western Union clock which was regulated
by a master time signal. And they were doing radio broadcasts
from the east and west coasts clear back in the 1920s.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Oct 29th 2004, 7:13 am
#183
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:14:19 +0300, "Markku Grönroos"
<grö[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> kirjoitti viestissä
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:39:56 +0200, 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.
>> But it's not YOUR clock that's involved. The clocks are in the
>> satellites.
>When you have switched on your receiver and it starts catching satellites,
>you can see that receiver's clock will be adjusted as well. So the time
>signal travels all the way to the receiving end.
Which one is the clock, then, and which the readout?
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
<grö[email protected]> wrote:
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> kirjoitti viestissä
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:39:56 +0200, 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.
>> But it's not YOUR clock that's involved. The clocks are in the
>> satellites.
>When you have switched on your receiver and it starts catching satellites,
>you can see that receiver's clock will be adjusted as well. So the time
>signal travels all the way to the receiving end.
Which one is the clock, then, and which the readout?
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Oct 29th 2004, 10:08 am
#184
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>
> > Are you afraid you'll miss an appointment in 5337?
>
> I see no reason not to buy an accurate watch,
I see no reason to buy a watch. I don't own one.
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> Hatunen writes:
>
> > Are you afraid you'll miss an appointment in 5337?
>
> I see no reason not to buy an accurate watch,
I see no reason to buy a watch. I don't own one.
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Oct 29th 2004, 10:08 am
#185
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
Owain <[email protected]> wrote:
> "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.
Yes, this is certainly the case. Many newer VCRs in the UK (such as the
cheapo one I have) get their time from a broadcast signal, so they're as
accurate as you need them to be. Problem is, the broadcasters don't
adhere to their own schedule. If it was just incompetence, that would be
one thing, but it's entirely on purpose, especially when the BBC and ITV
are competing with each other over soap operas, etc. I've frequently
used VCR+ codes, only to find I've missed the beginning of something, or
worse, missed the last 30 seconds or so.
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> "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.
Yes, this is certainly the case. Many newer VCRs in the UK (such as the
cheapo one I have) get their time from a broadcast signal, so they're as
accurate as you need them to be. Problem is, the broadcasters don't
adhere to their own schedule. If it was just incompetence, that would be
one thing, but it's entirely on purpose, especially when the BBC and ITV
are competing with each other over soap operas, etc. I've frequently
used VCR+ codes, only to find I've missed the beginning of something, or
worse, missed the last 30 seconds or so.
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Oct 29th 2004, 6:18 pm
#186
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
Hatunen writes:
> Which one is the clock, then, and which the readout?
Receivers contain a clock that is steered by the satellite signals.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Which one is the clock, then, and which the readout?
Receivers contain a clock that is steered by the satellite signals.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Oct 29th 2004, 6:19 pm
#187
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
Hatunen writes:
> They were doing this sort of time synch long before TV. All radio
> stations used to have a Western Union clock which was regulated
> by a master time signal. And they were doing radio broadcasts
> from the east and west coasts clear back in the 1920s.
The problem became more acute as time went on. I recall that some
specific incidents of desynchronization spurred them on to acquire more
accurate clocks, but I don't remember the details of the incidents.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> They were doing this sort of time synch long before TV. All radio
> stations used to have a Western Union clock which was regulated
> by a master time signal. And they were doing radio broadcasts
> from the east and west coasts clear back in the 1920s.
The problem became more acute as time went on. I recall that some
specific incidents of desynchronization spurred them on to acquire more
accurate clocks, but I don't remember the details of the incidents.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Oct 29th 2004, 8:50 pm
#188
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:45:21 +0200, Mxsmanic
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Owain writes:
> >
> >> That would be relevant if broadcasters started their programmes on
time.
> >
> >They do in the U.S. In fact, one of the earliest applications for
> >extremely accurate (subsecond) time of day was in television networks,
> >which had to closely synchronize broadcasts across the U.S., and most
> >notably between the two coasts (Los Angeles and New York).
> They were doing this sort of time synch long before TV.
I can understaand the point about synchronising between time zones in the
States, but one thing puzzles me. The programme overruns in Britain have a
sneaky competitive purpose. If, say, the BBC's programme scheduled for 7.30
to 8 runs until 8.03, they hope that you will continue with Auntie Beeb
rather than switching over to ITV for the 8 o'clock episode of The Bill.
Presumably the same motive of audience retention would apply to American
broadcasters????
Alan Harrison
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:45:21 +0200, Mxsmanic
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Owain writes:
> >
> >> That would be relevant if broadcasters started their programmes on
time.
> >
> >They do in the U.S. In fact, one of the earliest applications for
> >extremely accurate (subsecond) time of day was in television networks,
> >which had to closely synchronize broadcasts across the U.S., and most
> >notably between the two coasts (Los Angeles and New York).
> They were doing this sort of time synch long before TV.
I can understaand the point about synchronising between time zones in the
States, but one thing puzzles me. The programme overruns in Britain have a
sneaky competitive purpose. If, say, the BBC's programme scheduled for 7.30
to 8 runs until 8.03, they hope that you will continue with Auntie Beeb
rather than switching over to ITV for the 8 o'clock episode of The Bill.
Presumably the same motive of audience retention would apply to American
broadcasters????
Alan Harrison
Oct 30th 2004, 2:57 am
#189
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
Alan Harrison wrote:
>
>
> I can understaand the point about synchronising between time zones in the
> States, but one thing puzzles me. The programme overruns in Britain have a
> sneaky competitive purpose. If, say, the BBC's programme scheduled for 7.30
> to 8 runs until 8.03, they hope that you will continue with Auntie Beeb
> rather than switching over to ITV for the 8 o'clock episode of The Bill.
That's why god gave us VCRs.
>
>
> I can understaand the point about synchronising between time zones in the
> States, but one thing puzzles me. The programme overruns in Britain have a
> sneaky competitive purpose. If, say, the BBC's programme scheduled for 7.30
> to 8 runs until 8.03, they hope that you will continue with Auntie Beeb
> rather than switching over to ITV for the 8 o'clock episode of The Bill.
That's why god gave us VCRs.
Oct 30th 2004, 7:17 am
#190
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
"Mike O'Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alan Harrison wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can understaand the point about synchronising between time zones in
the
> > States, but one thing puzzles me. The programme overruns in Britain have
a
> > sneaky competitive purpose. If, say, the BBC's programme scheduled for
7.30
> > to 8 runs until 8.03, they hope that you will continue with Auntie Beeb
> > rather than switching over to ITV for the 8 o'clock episode of The Bill.
> That's why god gave us VCRs.
Yeah, but if programmes don't run to time, that buggers up the VCR. I have
moaned (in vain) to the Beeb about the practice of allowing sports coverage
to over-run and thereby creating difficulties for those who have set VCRs. I
understand that more people in the UK go to church than attend kick-ball
matches, but just imagine the wrath if Corrie were delayed by a televised
service followed by detailed theological and liturgical analysis by the
Bishop of X, Canon Y and Rabbi Z!
Alan Harrison
news:[email protected]...
> Alan Harrison wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can understaand the point about synchronising between time zones in
the
> > States, but one thing puzzles me. The programme overruns in Britain have
a
> > sneaky competitive purpose. If, say, the BBC's programme scheduled for
7.30
> > to 8 runs until 8.03, they hope that you will continue with Auntie Beeb
> > rather than switching over to ITV for the 8 o'clock episode of The Bill.
> That's why god gave us VCRs.
Yeah, but if programmes don't run to time, that buggers up the VCR. I have
moaned (in vain) to the Beeb about the practice of allowing sports coverage
to over-run and thereby creating difficulties for those who have set VCRs. I
understand that more people in the UK go to church than attend kick-ball
matches, but just imagine the wrath if Corrie were delayed by a televised
service followed by detailed theological and liturgical analysis by the
Bishop of X, Canon Y and Rabbi Z!
Alan Harrison
Oct 30th 2004, 8:29 am
#191
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
Alan Harrison wrote:
> "Mike O'Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Alan Harrison wrote:
>>>I can understaand the point about synchronising between time zones in
>>> the
>>>States, but one thing puzzles me. The programme overruns in Britain have
>
> a
>
>>>sneaky competitive purpose. If, say, the BBC's programme scheduled for
>
> 7.30
>
>>>to 8 runs until 8.03, they hope that you will continue with Auntie Beeb
>>>rather than switching over to ITV for the 8 o'clock episode of The Bill.
>>That's why god gave us VCRs.
>
>
> Yeah, but if programmes don't run to time, that buggers up the VCR. I have
> moaned (in vain) to the Beeb about the practice of allowing sports coverage
> to over-run and thereby creating difficulties for those who have set VCRs. I
> understand that more people in the UK go to church than attend kick-ball
> matches, but just imagine the wrath if Corrie were delayed by a televised
> service followed by detailed theological and liturgical analysis by the
> Bishop of X, Canon Y and Rabbi Z!
>
> Alan Harrison
If you are just time shifting then record long. If you get the start of
the
next show just quit watching.
> "Mike O'Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Alan Harrison wrote:
>>>I can understaand the point about synchronising between time zones in
>>> the
>>>States, but one thing puzzles me. The programme overruns in Britain have
>
> a
>
>>>sneaky competitive purpose. If, say, the BBC's programme scheduled for
>
> 7.30
>
>>>to 8 runs until 8.03, they hope that you will continue with Auntie Beeb
>>>rather than switching over to ITV for the 8 o'clock episode of The Bill.
>>That's why god gave us VCRs.
>
>
> Yeah, but if programmes don't run to time, that buggers up the VCR. I have
> moaned (in vain) to the Beeb about the practice of allowing sports coverage
> to over-run and thereby creating difficulties for those who have set VCRs. I
> understand that more people in the UK go to church than attend kick-ball
> matches, but just imagine the wrath if Corrie were delayed by a televised
> service followed by detailed theological and liturgical analysis by the
> Bishop of X, Canon Y and Rabbi Z!
>
> Alan Harrison
If you are just time shifting then record long. If you get the start of
the
next show just quit watching.
Oct 30th 2004, 10:01 pm
#192
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
"Hatunen" <[email protected]> kirjoitti viestissä
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:14:19 +0300, "Markku Grönroos"
> <grö[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Hatunen" <[email protected]> kirjoitti viestissä
> >news:[email protected].. .
> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:39:56 +0200, 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.
> >>
> >> But it's not YOUR clock that's involved. The clocks are in the
> >> satellites.
> >>
> >When you have switched on your receiver and it starts catching
satellites,
> >you can see that receiver's clock will be adjusted as well. So the time
> >signal travels all the way to the receiving end.
> Which one is the clock, then, and which the readout?
Your receiver has a battery supported clock which is adjusted when needed by
time derivited from the signal.
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:14:19 +0300, "Markku Grönroos"
> <grö[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Hatunen" <[email protected]> kirjoitti viestissä
> >news:[email protected].. .
> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:39:56 +0200, 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.
> >>
> >> But it's not YOUR clock that's involved. The clocks are in the
> >> satellites.
> >>
> >When you have switched on your receiver and it starts catching
satellites,
> >you can see that receiver's clock will be adjusted as well. So the time
> >signal travels all the way to the receiving end.
> Which one is the clock, then, and which the readout?
Your receiver has a battery supported clock which is adjusted when needed by
time derivited from the signal.
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Oct 30th 2004, 10:15 pm
#193
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
The clocks have gone back. :-)
--
Martin
--
Martin
Oct 30th 2004, 11:06 pm
#194
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
[email protected] writes:
> The clocks have gone back. :-)
If you had not mentioned it, I never would have known.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> The clocks have gone back. :-)
If you had not mentioned it, I never would have known.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Oct 30th 2004, 11:15 pm
#195
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Clocks going back this weekend?
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:06:04 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> The clocks have gone back. :-)
>If you had not mentioned it, I never would have known.
I thought so :-)
--
Martin
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> The clocks have gone back. :-)
>If you had not mentioned it, I never would have known.
I thought so :-)
--
Martin
