Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Check the accuracy of your computer's clock
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Harold
Mar 14, 2012, 3:57:04 PM3/14/12
to
Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
"Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
"most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
your clock is."
http://time.is/
--
Harold
"Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
"most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
your clock is."
http://time.is/
--
Harold
Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook
Mar 14, 2012, 4:41:12 PM3/14/12
to
http://www.arachnoid.com/abouttime/
--
Heard melodies are sweet, but those Unheard are sweeter
flyi...@tiscali.co.uk FN 2°12 +, Mungo Brandybuck of Buckland
Frederick Williams
Mar 14, 2012, 4:54:09 PM3/14/12
to
signal from that clock does not know how long it will take to reach my
computer. It can only make an estimate which will rarely be as correct
as an atomic clock.
--
The next few little actual people come from any much larger number of
different POSSIBLE perspectives.
George Green, aka GEORGE GREEN
Pete C
Mar 14, 2012, 4:55:04 PM3/14/12
to
"Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9sce3c...@mid.individual.net...
> Harold wrote:
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>> time!
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
I'm 2 sec slow
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>> time!
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
--
Pete C
London meet Sat June 9th 2012
Tickettyboo
Mar 14, 2012, 6:07:46 PM3/14/12
to
--
Tickettyboo
Ali
Mar 14, 2012, 6:13:05 PM3/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:54:09 GMT, Frederick Williams commented
> Harold wrote:
>>
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>> time!
>>
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
> Why use the "most accurate time source in the world"?
It's better than using the "most inaccurate time source in the world"
> The sender of the signal from that clock does not know how long it will
> take to reach my computer. It can only make an estimate which will
> rarely be as correct as an atomic clock.
However, ever since XP, Windows has by default set its clock from an
atomic clock, an NTP server, with the travel time assumed to be half of
the round-trip time - which may occasionally be wrong, but is usually
considerably less than the internal precision of a PC clock. So that site
doesn't improve the accuracy of anyone's time knowledge.
Also anyone using GPS or mobile phone for time are using at least 4 "out of
this world accuracy" atomic clocks.
--
Ali
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/ Don't go there.
UPS/FUNTO February stats: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/stats/
Nine years of reporting!
> Harold wrote:
>>
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>> time!
>>
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
> Why use the "most accurate time source in the world"?
> The sender of the signal from that clock does not know how long it will
> take to reach my computer. It can only make an estimate which will
> rarely be as correct as an atomic clock.
atomic clock, an NTP server, with the travel time assumed to be half of
the round-trip time - which may occasionally be wrong, but is usually
considerably less than the internal precision of a PC clock. So that site
doesn't improve the accuracy of anyone's time knowledge.
Also anyone using GPS or mobile phone for time are using at least 4 "out of
this world accuracy" atomic clocks.
--
Ali
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/ Don't go there.
UPS/FUNTO February stats: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/stats/
Nine years of reporting!
Ali
Mar 14, 2012, 6:15:12 PM3/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:07:46 GMT, Tickettyboo commented
Eh? I thought it was only half past March. Time flies :^(
Tickettyboo
Mar 14, 2012, 6:32:41 PM3/14/12
to
On 2012-03-14 22:15:12 +0000, Ali said:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:07:46 GMT, Tickettyboo commented
>
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:07:46 GMT, Tickettyboo commented
>
>> Three quarters past March:-) Looks like my clock is doing good !
>
> Eh? I thought it was only half past March. Time flies :^(
I am a woman ahead of her time :-)
>
> Eh? I thought it was only half past March. Time flies :^(
--
Tickettyboo
Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook
Mar 14, 2012, 8:28:15 PM3/14/12
to
Pete C wrote:
> "Flyińg Ńuń 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
> "Flyińg Ńuń 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:9sce3c...@mid.individual.net...
>> Harold wrote:
>>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>>> time!
>>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how
>>> accurate your clock is."
>
> I'm 2 sec slow
I think it's an age thing Pete ! ;)
>> Harold wrote:
>>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>>> time!
>>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how
>>> accurate your clock is."
>
> I'm 2 sec slow
Goromoff
Mar 15, 2012, 12:59:41 AM3/15/12
to
Harold <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk:
I can confirm their clock is dead right!
--
Goromoff
www.mantonwood.co.uk
Mungo Brockhouse of Loamsdown
Valendil Seregon
news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk:
--
Goromoff
www.mantonwood.co.uk
Mungo Brockhouse of Loamsdown
Valendil Seregon
Peter T
Mar 15, 2012, 2:20:09 AM3/15/12
to
In article <XnsA016E25FDE4...@88.198.244.100>,
ali.on...@ntlworld.com says...
--
Pete
ali.on...@ntlworld.com says...
> >>
> >> http://time.is/
> >
> > Three quarters past March:-) Looks like my clock is doing good !
>
> Eh? I thought it was only half past March. Time flies :^(
>
>
Can't Ide the fact it's only half past March:-)
> >> http://time.is/
> >
> > Three quarters past March:-) Looks like my clock is doing good !
>
> Eh? I thought it was only half past March. Time flies :^(
>
>
--
Pete
ray
Mar 15, 2012, 4:41:31 AM3/15/12
to
Ali <ali.on...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Why use the "most accurate time source in the world"?
>
> It's better than using the "most inaccurate time source in the world"
Fred makes a very good point.
> > Why use the "most accurate time source in the world"?
>
> It's better than using the "most inaccurate time source in the world"
The first time I checked, it said my computer clock was 0.5 seconds
fast.
I accessed the web page again 30 seconds later and my computer time is
exact.
It's not the most accurate website in the world.
--
Web development,seo,hosting,e-commerce
and all that stuff. If we can help you
http://www.dream-weaver.com
Pete C
Mar 15, 2012, 5:46:33 AM3/15/12
to
"Harold" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>
> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
> your clock is."
Mmmm, it says my computer is 2 sec slow. It says the same for my weather
>
> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
> your clock is."
station.....which also gets it's time from an atomic clock. Odd or what?
Rabbit
Mar 15, 2012, 6:52:02 AM3/15/12
to
"Harold" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
--
Sandra
People will forget what you said.
People will forget what you did, but
People will never forget how you made them feel.
griffin
Mar 15, 2012, 7:33:35 AM3/15/12
to
Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook
Mar 15, 2012, 7:51:43 AM3/15/12
to
Rabbit wrote:
> "Harold" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>> time! "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how
>> accurate your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
> I'm 1.9 seconds fast. I think I can live with that :-)
Some folk will just put up with anything!!! ;)
> "Harold" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>> time! "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how
>> accurate your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
> I'm 1.9 seconds fast. I think I can live with that :-)
ned
Mar 15, 2012, 9:13:02 AM3/15/12
to
"Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9se3eh...@mid.individual.net...
> Rabbit wrote:
>> "Harold" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>>> time! "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how
>>> accurate your clock is."
>>>
>>> http://time.is/
>>
>> I'm 1.9 seconds fast. I think I can live with that :-)
>
> Some folk will just put up with anything!!! ;)
I'm just a bit gobsmacked at all this pedantic concern about accuracy.
>> "Harold" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>>> time! "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how
>>> accurate your clock is."
>>>
>>> http://time.is/
>>
>> I'm 1.9 seconds fast. I think I can live with that :-)
>
> Some folk will just put up with anything!!! ;)
I freely admit that I'm a bit behind the times but it doesn't seem to impede
my travels through time one bit.
It would appear that my PC clock is 19 seconds slow.
(I can hear the sharp intakes of breath even now!
Well, in 19 seconds time.)
So what?
There are times when I don't even know what day it is.
With the world hurtling towards disaster, will it make much difference
whether it happens in 0.1 second or in 19 seconds time? I think not.
--
ned
Rabbit
Mar 15, 2012, 11:54:48 AM3/15/12
to
"Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9se3eh...@mid.individual.net...
news:9se3eh...@mid.individual.net...
> Rabbit wrote:
>> "Harold" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>>> time! "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how
>>> accurate your clock is."
>>>
>>> http://time.is/
>>
>> I'm 1.9 seconds fast. I think I can live with that :-)
>
> Some folk will just put up with anything!!! ;)
It's now 2.2 seconds fast and I'm still not panicking :-)
>> "Harold" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>>> time! "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how
>>> accurate your clock is."
>>>
>>> http://time.is/
>>
>> I'm 1.9 seconds fast. I think I can live with that :-)
>
> Some folk will just put up with anything!!! ;)
Rabbit
Mar 15, 2012, 11:55:43 AM3/15/12
to
"ned" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:jjsptg$ied$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> I'm just a bit gobsmacked at all this pedantic concern about accuracy.
> I freely admit that I'm a bit behind the times but it doesn't seem to
> impede my travels through time one bit.
> It would appear that my PC clock is 19 seconds slow.
> (I can hear the sharp intakes of breath even now!
> Well, in 19 seconds time.)
> So what?
I'll have read your post :-)
> I'm just a bit gobsmacked at all this pedantic concern about accuracy.
> I freely admit that I'm a bit behind the times but it doesn't seem to
> impede my travels through time one bit.
> It would appear that my PC clock is 19 seconds slow.
> (I can hear the sharp intakes of breath even now!
> Well, in 19 seconds time.)
> So what?
Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook
Mar 15, 2012, 5:21:11 PM3/15/12
to
Rabbit wrote:
> "Flyińg Ńuń 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
then?
> "Flyińg Ńuń 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:9se3eh...@mid.individual.net...
>> Rabbit wrote:
>>> "Harold" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>>>> time! "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock
>>>> (the "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how
>>>> accurate your clock is."
>>>>
>>>> http://time.is/
>>>
>>> I'm 1.9 seconds fast. I think I can live with that :-)
>>
>> Some folk will just put up with anything!!! ;)
>
> It's now 2.2 seconds fast and I'm still not panicking :-)
What steady nerves you've got these days. :) What do you put that down to
>> Rabbit wrote:
>>> "Harold" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:ou6dnaCTpYCSZf3S...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>>>> time! "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock
>>>> (the "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how
>>>> accurate your clock is."
>>>>
>>>> http://time.is/
>>>
>>> I'm 1.9 seconds fast. I think I can live with that :-)
>>
>> Some folk will just put up with anything!!! ;)
>
> It's now 2.2 seconds fast and I'm still not panicking :-)
then?
Rabbit
Mar 16, 2012, 7:13:02 AM3/16/12
to
"Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9sf4qa...@mid.individual.net...
news:9sf4qa...@mid.individual.net...
> Rabbit wrote:
>>
>> It's now 2.2 seconds fast and I'm still not panicking :-)
>
> What steady nerves you've got these days. :) What do you put that down
> to then?
I'm female :-)
>>
>> It's now 2.2 seconds fast and I'm still not panicking :-)
>
> What steady nerves you've got these days. :) What do you put that down
> to then?
Michaelangelo
Mar 16, 2012, 7:21:26 AM3/16/12
to
Peter T used his keyboard to write :
> Can't Ide the fact it's only half past March:-)
LOL! Excellent!
> Can't Ide the fact it's only half past March:-)
Peter T
Mar 16, 2012, 7:23:51 AM3/16/12
to
--
Pete
Peter T
Mar 16, 2012, 7:25:29 AM3/16/12
to
--
Pete
The Welsh Windbag
Mar 16, 2012, 8:38:37 AM3/16/12
to
"Harold" wrote
computer?
--
Lyndon
Frederick Williams
Mar 16, 2012, 9:12:06 AM3/16/12
to
uncertainty is vast compared to the resolution of an atomic clock; which
is why the whole thing is daft.
Frederick Williams
Mar 16, 2012, 9:15:38 AM3/16/12
to
same one) the time for the getting and the setting of the devices'
clocks can easily be two seconds.
Frederick Williams
Mar 16, 2012, 9:18:36 AM3/16/12
to
Harold wrote:
>
> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>
> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
> your clock is."
>
> http://time.is/
>
> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>
> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
> your clock is."
>
Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
minutes is a vulgarian.
MCC
Mar 16, 2012, 10:03:07 AM3/16/12
to
Frederick Williams wrote:
> Harold wrote:
>>
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>>
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
> Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
> minutes is a vulgarian.
As a qualified navigator who depends on accurate time to determine his
> Harold wrote:
>>
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>>
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
> Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
> minutes is a vulgarian.
position, I have to say you are talking out of your backside, Frederick.
Complete and utter nonsense.
--
MCC from the planet Vulgar
Message has been deleted
Gordon H
Mar 16, 2012, 10:22:09 AM3/16/12
to
In message <4F633DAC...@btinternet.com>, Frederick Williams
<freddyw...@btinternet.com> writes
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply
<freddyw...@btinternet.com> writes
>Harold wrote:
>>
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>>
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
>Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
>minutes is a vulgarian.
>
Anyone who isn't, has probably just missed his train.
>>
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>>
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
>Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
>minutes is a vulgarian.
>
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply
Geordie
Mar 16, 2012, 10:48:00 AM3/16/12
to
Your bus left on time 2 minutes ago.
Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook
Mar 16, 2012, 11:10:28 AM3/16/12
to
Rabbit wrote:
> "Flyińg Ńuń 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
;)
> "Flyińg Ńuń 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:9sf4qa...@mid.individual.net...
>> Rabbit wrote:
>>>
>>> It's now 2.2 seconds fast and I'm still not panicking :-)
>>
>> What steady nerves you've got these days. :) What do you put that
>> down to then?
>
> I'm female :-)
You mean you weren't before then? I'm almost gobsmacked by that revelation.
>> Rabbit wrote:
>>>
>>> It's now 2.2 seconds fast and I'm still not panicking :-)
>>
>> What steady nerves you've got these days. :) What do you put that
>> down to then?
>
> I'm female :-)
;)
griffin
Mar 16, 2012, 11:36:56 AM3/16/12
to
On 16/03/2012 13:18, Frederick Williams wrote:
> Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
> minutes is a vulgarian.
I can just see you standing on the platform at Amsterdam Central, or
> Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
> minutes is a vulgarian.
Lille Europe wondering about your train, that left EXACTLY on time
Michaelangelo
Mar 16, 2012, 12:02:35 PM3/16/12
to
Peter T brought next idea :
It is indeed, Peter, though there's still loads of things to install
and to tweak. Why is it that with a new PC it's always difficult to get
programs that you've used for years to look/work exactly as they did in
the past?
and to tweak. Why is it that with a new PC it's always difficult to get
programs that you've used for years to look/work exactly as they did in
the past?
Michaelangelo
Mar 16, 2012, 12:05:42 PM3/16/12
to
Michaelangelo laid this down on his screen :
> It is indeed, Peter, though there's still loads of things to install and to
> tweak. Why is it that with a new PC it's always difficult to get programs
> that you've used for years to look/work exactly as they did in the past?
Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader but it's
not displaying it. There's obviously a box that I haven't ticked or
some piece of info that i haven't filled in somewhere but I'm damned if
I can find it.
> It is indeed, Peter, though there's still loads of things to install and to
> tweak. Why is it that with a new PC it's always difficult to get programs
> that you've used for years to look/work exactly as they did in the past?
not displaying it. There's obviously a box that I haven't ticked or
some piece of info that i haven't filled in somewhere but I'm damned if
I can find it.
Michaelangelo
Mar 16, 2012, 12:07:58 PM3/16/12
to
Michaelangelo expressed precisely :
> Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader but it's not
> displaying it. There's obviously a box that I haven't ticked or some piece of
> info that i haven't filled in somewhere but I'm damned if I can find it.
Actually, I may just have found it.
--
Michaelangelo
No clever quotation yet identified! I'm working on it.
> Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader but it's not
> displaying it. There's obviously a box that I haven't ticked or some piece of
> info that i haven't filled in somewhere but I'm damned if I can find it.
--
Michaelangelo
No clever quotation yet identified! I'm working on it.
Michaelangelo
Mar 16, 2012, 12:08:34 PM3/16/12
to
Michaelangelo expressed precisely :
> Actually, I may just have found it.
Hurrah! :)
> Actually, I may just have found it.
Michaelangelo
Mar 16, 2012, 12:10:43 PM3/16/12
to
Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook laid this down on his screen :
> Some folk will just put up with anything!!! ;)
No standards these days! :)
> Some folk will just put up with anything!!! ;)
Michaelangelo
Mar 16, 2012, 1:54:56 PM3/16/12
to
Frederick Williams brought next idea :
> Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
> minutes is a vulgarian.
Not if they have a train or a bus to catch.
--
Michaelangelo
There is always more misery among the lower classes than there is
humanity in the higher. - Victor Hugo
> Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
> minutes is a vulgarian.
--
Michaelangelo
There is always more misery among the lower classes than there is
humanity in the higher. - Victor Hugo
Rabbit
Mar 16, 2012, 2:42:10 PM3/16/12
to
"Peter T" <pe...@comfortable.com> wrote in message
news:1146664857353589770.985...@News.Individual.Net...
Hope the cable is long enough ;-)
news:1146664857353589770.985...@News.Individual.Net...
Rabbit
Mar 16, 2012, 2:43:46 PM3/16/12
to
"Michaelangelo" <ma...@mikegel.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9sh6r1...@mid.individual.net...
attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
news:9sh6r1...@mid.individual.net...
> Michaelangelo expressed precisely :
>
>> Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader but it's not
>> displaying it. There's obviously a box that I haven't ticked or some
>> piece of info that i haven't filled in somewhere but I'm damned if I can
>> find it.
>
> Actually, I may just have found it.
A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you getting the
>
>> Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader but it's not
>> displaying it. There's obviously a box that I haven't ticked or some
>> piece of info that i haven't filled in somewhere but I'm damned if I can
>> find it.
>
> Actually, I may just have found it.
attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
Rabbit
Mar 16, 2012, 2:44:33 PM3/16/12
to
"Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9sh3f6...@mid.individual.net...
> Rabbit wrote:
>> "Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
news:9sh3f6...@mid.individual.net...
> Rabbit wrote:
>> "Flyiñg Ñuñ 2°12 + on netbook" <flyi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:9sf4qa...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Rabbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's now 2.2 seconds fast and I'm still not panicking :-)
>>>
>>> What steady nerves you've got these days. :) What do you put that
>>> down to then?
>>
>> I'm female :-)
>
> You mean you weren't before then? I'm almost gobsmacked by that
> revelation. ;)
See if your gob hadn't been smacked you would have noticed before :-)
>>> Rabbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's now 2.2 seconds fast and I'm still not panicking :-)
>>>
>>> What steady nerves you've got these days. :) What do you put that
>>> down to then?
>>
>> I'm female :-)
>
> You mean you weren't before then? I'm almost gobsmacked by that
> revelation. ;)
Frederick Williams
Mar 16, 2012, 3:21:01 PM3/16/12
to
Frederick Williams wrote:
>
> Harold wrote:
> >
> > Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
> >
> > "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
> > "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
> > your clock is."
> >
> > http://time.is/
>
> Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
> minutes is a vulgarian.
My claim has not met with universal agreement. Let's try this instead:
>
> Harold wrote:
> >
> > Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
> >
> > "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
> > "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
> > your clock is."
> >
> > http://time.is/
>
> Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
> minutes is a vulgarian.
If people at the back of a crowd push against the people at the front,
and people at the front get crushed to death, then it's the people who
did the pushing who are to blame for the deaths, even if they are
whining, self-pitying scousers.
Pam the goose
Mar 16, 2012, 3:35:02 PM3/16/12
to
Rabbit wrote:
> "Michaelangelo" <ma...@mikegel.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9sh6r1...@mid.individual.net...
>> Michaelangelo expressed precisely :
>>
>>> Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader
>>> but
>>> it's not displaying it. There's obviously a box that I
>>> haven't
>>> ticked or some piece of info that i haven't filled in
>>> somewhere but
>>> I'm damned if I can find it.
>>
>> Actually, I may just have found it.
>
> A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you
> getting the
> attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
Good thing I read this first, I was going to ask the same
> "Michaelangelo" <ma...@mikegel.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9sh6r1...@mid.individual.net...
>> Michaelangelo expressed precisely :
>>
>>> Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader
>>> but
>>> it's not displaying it. There's obviously a box that I
>>> haven't
>>> ticked or some piece of info that i haven't filled in
>>> somewhere but
>>> I'm damned if I can find it.
>>
>> Actually, I may just have found it.
>
> A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you
> getting the
> attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
question!
Thanks, Sandra:-)
--
Pam the goose
MCC
Mar 16, 2012, 3:41:04 PM3/16/12
to
Rabbit wrote:
> "Michaelangelo" <ma...@mikegel.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9sh6r1...@mid.individual.net...
>> Michaelangelo expressed precisely :
>>
>>> Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader but it's not
>>> displaying it. There's obviously a box that I haven't ticked or some
>>> piece of info that i haven't filled in somewhere but I'm damned if I can
>>> find it.
>>
>> Actually, I may just have found it.
>
> A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you getting the
> attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
According to his headers, Mike is using MesNews.
> "Michaelangelo" <ma...@mikegel.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9sh6r1...@mid.individual.net...
>> Michaelangelo expressed precisely :
>>
>>> Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader but it's not
>>> displaying it. There's obviously a box that I haven't ticked or some
>>> piece of info that i haven't filled in somewhere but I'm damned if I can
>>> find it.
>>
>> Actually, I may just have found it.
>
> A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you getting the
> attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
--
MCC
Harold
Mar 16, 2012, 4:04:12 PM3/16/12
to
On 14/03/2012 20:41, Flyińg Ńuń 2°12 + on netbook wrote:
> Harold wrote:
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>> time!
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
> I've been using 'About Time' for quite a few years now. It's fine
> Harold wrote:
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>> time!
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
> http://www.arachnoid.com/abouttime/
Yes, but that has to be downloaded and installed.
And it's Windows only, as it eplains further down the page:
http://www.arachnoid.com/abouttime/#Linux
"But Linux, unlike Windows, is a civilized operating system, offering
the kinds of resources one should expect from an operating system meant
to meet your needs, not the needs of a very wealthy corporation. This
means Linux already knows how to synchronize itself with various kinds
of time servers, and it also knows how to synchronize local intranets.
This capability is innate and does not require any add-ons."
:-)
--
Harold
Michaelangelo
Mar 16, 2012, 4:11:15 PM3/16/12
to
Rabbit leapt into action and said:
> A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you getting the
> attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
I am using Win7 but, as Mike C has already posted, I use MesNews as my
> A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you getting the
> attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
newsreader. I've been using it for a few years now.
--
Michaelangelo
'There is always more misery among the lower classes than there is
Tickettyboo
Mar 16, 2012, 4:51:03 PM3/16/12
to
On 2012-03-16 18:43:46 +0000, Rabbit said:
> "Michaelangelo" <ma...@mikegel.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9sh6r1...@mid.individual.net...
>> Michaelangelo expressed precisely :
>>
>>> Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader but it's
>>> not displaying it. There's obviously a box that I haven't ticked or
>>> some piece of info that i haven't filled in somewhere but I'm damned if
>>> I can find it.
>>
>> Actually, I may just have found it.
>
> A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you getting the
> attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
check the headers, though Mike's OS may be win7, he is using a pukka
> "Michaelangelo" <ma...@mikegel.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9sh6r1...@mid.individual.net...
>> Michaelangelo expressed precisely :
>>
>>> Here's an example. I've set up a signature in my news reader but it's
>>> not displaying it. There's obviously a box that I haven't ticked or
>>> some piece of info that i haven't filled in somewhere but I'm damned if
>>> I can find it.
>>
>> Actually, I may just have found it.
>
> A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you getting the
> attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
newsreader rather than the Microsoft Mail thing that causes the
attribution problems.
--
Tickettyboo
Tickettyboo
Mar 16, 2012, 4:53:32 PM3/16/12
to
On 2012-03-16 13:18:36 +0000, Frederick Williams said:
>
> Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
> minutes is a vulgarian.
Oh . Are they the ones from Star Trek that have those sort of folds in
>
> Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
> minutes is a vulgarian.
their forehead? They are cute in an alien kind of way.
--
Tickettyboo
Tickettyboo
Mar 16, 2012, 4:57:14 PM3/16/12
to
On 2012-03-16 19:21:01 +0000, Frederick Williams said:
> My claim has not met with universal agreement. Let's try this instead:
> If people at the back of a crowd push against the people at the front,
> and people at the front get crushed to death, then it's the people who
> did the pushing who are to blame for the deaths, even if they are
> whining, self-pitying scousers.
Oh untrue non-sequiturs.
> My claim has not met with universal agreement. Let's try this instead:
> If people at the back of a crowd push against the people at the front,
> and people at the front get crushed to death, then it's the people who
> did the pushing who are to blame for the deaths, even if they are
> whining, self-pitying scousers.
What an odd thing to post.
--
Tickettyboo
Oliver
Mar 16, 2012, 5:14:20 PM3/16/12
to
Vulcans are the ones with slightly pointing-up ears. They follow
logical thought patterns which can sometimes lead to odd, even if
logical, behaviour. Whether that has any relevance to the OP I feel I
do not have either the qualifications or experience to comment. I can
only observe that
(a) when a hole is perceived to be getting deeper than necessary it is
better to stop digging
(b) when so many trains have left the station it is just possible that
the last one has been missed
(c) the time indicator on my laptop reads 21:14
:-)
--
Oliver
Ali
Mar 16, 2012, 6:04:28 PM3/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:04:12 GMT, Harold commented
Windows caught up with XP. AboutTime can be useful if you only go online
occasionally, as I used to do at the salaried fun since we were on expensive
dial-up.
--
Ali
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/ Don't go there.
UPS/FUNTO February stats: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/stats/
Nine years of reporting!
occasionally, as I used to do at the salaried fun since we were on expensive
dial-up.
--
Ali
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/ Don't go there.
UPS/FUNTO February stats: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/stats/
Nine years of reporting!
Ali
Mar 16, 2012, 6:12:08 PM3/16/12
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:12:06 GMT, Frederick Williams commented
> The Welsh Windbag wrote:
>>
>> "Harold" wrote
>> >Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>> >time!
>> >
>> >"Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> >"most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> >your clock is."
>> >
>> >http://time.is/
>>
>> How long does is take the signal to get from wherever the clock is to
>> my computer?
>
> "They" don't know, so they halve the time for the round trip. The
> uncertainty is vast compared to the resolution of an atomic clock;
but less than the resolution of the PC real-time clock;
> which is why the whole thing is daft.
> The Welsh Windbag wrote:
>>
>> "Harold" wrote
>> >Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the
>> >time!
>> >
>> >"Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> >"most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> >your clock is."
>> >
>> >http://time.is/
>>
>> my computer?
>
> "They" don't know, so they halve the time for the round trip. The
> uncertainty is vast compared to the resolution of an atomic clock;
but less than the resolution of the PC real-time clock;
> which is why the whole thing is daft.
Michaelangelo
Mar 16, 2012, 7:13:02 PM3/16/12
to
ned leapt into action and said:
> I'm just a bit gobsmacked at all this pedantic concern about accuracy.
> I freely admit that I'm a bit behind the times but it doesn't seem to impede
> my travels through time one bit.
> It would appear that my PC clock is 19 seconds slow.
> (I can hear the sharp intakes of breath even now!
> Well, in 19 seconds time.)
> So what?
> There are times when I don't even know what day it is.
> With the world hurtling towards disaster, will it make much difference
> whether it happens in 0.1 second or in 19 seconds time? I think not.
"What Time Is It, Eccles?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjHlFPTwVk
> I'm just a bit gobsmacked at all this pedantic concern about accuracy.
> I freely admit that I'm a bit behind the times but it doesn't seem to impede
> my travels through time one bit.
> It would appear that my PC clock is 19 seconds slow.
> (I can hear the sharp intakes of breath even now!
> Well, in 19 seconds time.)
> So what?
> There are times when I don't even know what day it is.
> With the world hurtling towards disaster, will it make much difference
> whether it happens in 0.1 second or in 19 seconds time? I think not.
"What Time Is It, Eccles?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjHlFPTwVk
ray
Mar 17, 2012, 4:00:39 AM3/17/12
to
T
--
Web development,seo,hosting,e-commerce
and all that stuff. If we can help you
http://www.dream-weaver.com
--
Web development,seo,hosting,e-commerce
and all that stuff. If we can help you
http://www.dream-weaver.com
Jeff
Mar 17, 2012, 4:39:04 AM3/17/12
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:38:37 -0000, "The Welsh Windbag"
<TheWels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Harold" wrote
>>Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>>
>>"Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>>"most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>>your clock is."
>>
>>http://time.is/
>
>How long does is take the signal to get from wherever the clock is to my
>computer?
I expect it is something like 1milli sec per 186 miles
<TheWels...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Harold" wrote
>>Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>>
>>"Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>>"most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>>your clock is."
>>
>>http://time.is/
>
>How long does is take the signal to get from wherever the clock is to my
>computer?
Actual time depends where you are in space. Even the atomic clock
varies accordingly.
jeff
Jeff
Mar 17, 2012, 4:40:15 AM3/17/12
to
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:18:36 +0000, Frederick Williams
<freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Harold wrote:
>>
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>>
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
<freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Harold wrote:
>>
>> Just come across this link. You won't need your glasses to read the time!
>>
>> "Time.is compares your computer's clock to an atomic clock (the
>> "most accurate time source in the world") to let you know how accurate
>> your clock is."
>>
>> http://time.is/
>
>Anyone who is interested in the time to an accuracy of better than two
>minutes is a vulgarian.
How about your sat nav?
>minutes is a vulgarian.
jeff
Gordon H
Mar 17, 2012, 6:24:58 AM3/17/12
to
In message <9shvo1...@mid.individual.net>, Michaelangelo
<ma...@mikegel.co.uk> writes
"Just a minute, I have it written down on this bit of paper".
I have been reading this thread in disbelief...
Checked against my radio-controlled wrist watch, my computer time has
varied between two seconds slow and five seconds fast.
So what? !!
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply
<ma...@mikegel.co.uk> writes
"Just a minute, I have it written down on this bit of paper".
I have been reading this thread in disbelief...
Checked against my radio-controlled wrist watch, my computer time has
varied between two seconds slow and five seconds fast.
So what? !!
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply
Gordon H
Mar 17, 2012, 6:29:51 AM3/17/12
to
In message <aej8m7589qg26ijri...@4ax.com>, Jeff
<ju...@jmilan.plus.com> writes
My SatMap is within a second or two of my wristwatch, but that is after
locking onto only 4 satellites.
<ju...@jmilan.plus.com> writes
locking onto only 4 satellites.
Michaelangelo
Mar 17, 2012, 7:09:37 AM3/17/12
to
Gordon H leapt into action and said:
> "Just a minute, I have it written down on this bit of paper".
>
> I have been reading this thread in disbelief...
>
> Checked against my radio-controlled wrist watch, my computer time has varied
> between two seconds slow and five seconds fast.
>
> So what? !!
Yep. Computer clocks are never all that accurate. Keeping the clock at
> "Just a minute, I have it written down on this bit of paper".
>
> I have been reading this thread in disbelief...
>
> Checked against my radio-controlled wrist watch, my computer time has varied
> between two seconds slow and five seconds fast.
>
> So what? !!
the right time is a low priority task for the processor so if it's busy
doing other things the clock gets neglected. As you say, 'so what?'
Rabbit
Mar 17, 2012, 7:33:56 AM3/17/12
to
"Michaelangelo" <ma...@mikegel.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9shl36...@mid.individual.net...
> Rabbit leapt into action and said:
>
>> A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you getting the
>> attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
>
> I am using Win7 but, as Mike C has already posted, I use MesNews as my
> newsreader. I've been using it for a few years now.
Ah I thought you used NIN. Thanks too to MCC and Boo I should have looked
>
>> A question. Presumably you are now using W7, how are you getting the
>> attribution marks to show on quoted text ?
>
> I am using Win7 but, as Mike C has already posted, I use MesNews as my
> newsreader. I've been using it for a few years now.
but I was convinced about NIN :-)
Frogman
Mar 17, 2012, 7:43:17 AM3/17/12
to
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:33:56 -0000, Rabbit croaked:
> Ah I thought you used NIN. Thanks too to MCC and Boo I should have looked
> but I was convinced about NIN :-)
He does indeed use NIN as his /news server/ and he uses MesNews as his
/news reader/
--
Regards
Frogman,
I am nobody... nobody is perfect... I must be perfect then.
> Ah I thought you used NIN. Thanks too to MCC and Boo I should have looked
> but I was convinced about NIN :-)
/news reader/
--
Regards
Frogman,
I am nobody... nobody is perfect... I must be perfect then.
Michaelangelo
Mar 17, 2012, 9:23:51 AM3/17/12
to
Frogman leapt into action and said:
> He does indeed use NIN as his /news server/ and he uses MesNews as his
> /news reader/
I CAME into SiSu, I SAW your post and I CONCUR.
> He does indeed use NIN as his /news server/ and he uses MesNews as his
> /news reader/
ariesval
Mar 17, 2012, 11:11:24 AM3/17/12
to
On 17/03/2012 11:43, Frogman wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:33:56 -0000, Rabbit croaked:
>
>> Ah I thought you used NIN. Thanks too to MCC and Boo I should have looked
>> but I was convinced about NIN :-)
>
> He does indeed use NIN as his /news server/ and he uses MesNews as his
> /news reader/
<g>
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:33:56 -0000, Rabbit croaked:
>
>> Ah I thought you used NIN. Thanks too to MCC and Boo I should have looked
>> but I was convinced about NIN :-)
>
> He does indeed use NIN as his /news server/ and he uses MesNews as his
> /news reader/
--
♈ ᗩᖇᓰᕮᔕⅤᗩᒪ
http://ariesval.wordpress.com/
ariesval
Mar 17, 2012, 11:13:12 AM3/17/12
to
On 17/03/2012 13:23, Michaelangelo wrote:
> Frogman leapt into action and said:
>
>> He does indeed use NIN as his /news server/ and he uses MesNews as his
>> /news reader/
>
> I CAME into SiSu, I SAW your post and I CONCUR.
>
That reminds me of my old headmistress. Girls girls, she would say -
> Frogman leapt into action and said:
>
>> He does indeed use NIN as his /news server/ and he uses MesNews as his
>> /news reader/
>
> I CAME into SiSu, I SAW your post and I CONCUR.
>
remember the three Cs - Cool. Calm. Collected :haha:
Frederick Williams
Mar 17, 2012, 11:29:41 AM3/17/12
to
Jeff wrote:
> How about your sat nav?
I don't have a sat nav. I am not the kind of dribbling idiot who finds
> How about your sat nav?
it necessary to go out and buy every shiny new gadget as soon as it
appears in the shops.
Frederick Williams
Mar 17, 2012, 11:31:29 AM3/17/12
to
Ali wrote:
> but less than the resolution of the PC real-time clock;
Was that once 1/55 of a second, and is it still?
> but less than the resolution of the PC real-time clock;
Gordon H
Mar 17, 2012, 11:43:39 AM3/17/12
to
In message <4F64ADE5...@btinternet.com>, Frederick Williams
<freddyw...@btinternet.com> writes
<freddyw...@btinternet.com> writes
>Jeff wrote:
>
>> How about your sat nav?
>
>I don't have a sat nav. I am not the kind of dribbling idiot who finds
>it necessary to go out and buy every shiny new gadget as soon as it
>appears in the shops.
>
Which kind of dribbling idiot are you then? ITWSBT
>
>> How about your sat nav?
>
>I don't have a sat nav. I am not the kind of dribbling idiot who finds
>it necessary to go out and buy every shiny new gadget as soon as it
>appears in the shops.
>
Rabbit
Mar 17, 2012, 12:37:28 PM3/17/12
to
"Frogman" <uk_fr...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1mluf36t...@frogman.plus.com...
news:1mluf36t...@frogman.plus.com...
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:33:56 -0000, Rabbit croaked:
>
>> Ah I thought you used NIN. Thanks too to MCC and Boo I should have looked
>> but I was convinced about NIN :-)
>
> He does indeed use NIN as his /news server/ and he uses MesNews as his
> /news reader/
Silly me. It was one of those days :-(
>
>> Ah I thought you used NIN. Thanks too to MCC and Boo I should have looked
>> but I was convinced about NIN :-)
>
> He does indeed use NIN as his /news server/ and he uses MesNews as his
> /news reader/
Ali
Mar 17, 2012, 12:49:45 PM3/17/12
to
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:31:29 GMT, Frederick Williams commented
> Ali wrote:
>
>> but less than the resolution of the PC real-time clock;
>
> Was that once 1/55 of a second, and is it still?
>
Just one second.
Elapsed time can be measured to greater accuracy, possibly even to
microseconds, but not time of day.
I remember some old computer using a 'tick' which was synchronised to the
display, and therefore to the mains frequency, either 1/50 of a second in UK
or 1/60 of a second in US, but nothing that used 1/55 of a second.
> Ali wrote:
>
>> but less than the resolution of the PC real-time clock;
>
> Was that once 1/55 of a second, and is it still?
>
Elapsed time can be measured to greater accuracy, possibly even to
microseconds, but not time of day.
I remember some old computer using a 'tick' which was synchronised to the
display, and therefore to the mains frequency, either 1/50 of a second in UK
or 1/60 of a second in US, but nothing that used 1/55 of a second.
Tickettyboo
Mar 17, 2012, 6:23:49 PM3/17/12
to
On 2012-03-16 23:13:02 +0000, Michaelangelo said:
> "What Time Is It, Eccles?"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjHlFPTwVk
The power of 5 words.
> "What Time Is It, Eccles?"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjHlFPTwVk
I was giggling before I even clicked!
--
Tickettyboo
Tickettyboo
Mar 17, 2012, 6:24:44 PM3/17/12
to
On 2012-03-17 08:00:39 +0000, ray said:
> T
in the park?
for two?
do tell :-)
--
Tickettyboo
> T
in the park?
for two?
do tell :-)
--
Tickettyboo
Tickettyboo
Mar 17, 2012, 6:29:26 PM3/17/12
to
ones (though that doesn't discount them from my list of cute in an
alien kind of way)
How does one calculate when a hole is deeper than necessary? Consult
Bernard Cribbens, perhaps? Though then you may be faced with the
dilemma that it really should be elsewhere anyway and someone will
start in about the whole shape thing too.
Aint life complimacated sometimes?
--
Tickettyboo
Tickettyboo
Mar 17, 2012, 6:30:47 PM3/17/12
to
On 2012-03-17 15:43:39 +0000, Gordon H said:
> ITWSBT
NoseyBoo would like to know, please, what the collection of letters mean.
Ta!
--
Tickettyboo
> ITWSBT
NoseyBoo would like to know, please, what the collection of letters mean.
Ta!
--
Tickettyboo
MCC
Mar 17, 2012, 6:42:03 PM3/17/12
to
Tickettyboo wrote:
> On 2012-03-17 15:43:39 +0000, Gordon H said:
>> ITWSBT
>
> NoseyBoo would like to know, please, what the collection of letters mean.
> Ta!
At a guess "I think we should be told" but ICBW :-)
> On 2012-03-17 15:43:39 +0000, Gordon H said:
>> ITWSBT
>
> NoseyBoo would like to know, please, what the collection of letters mean.
> Ta!
--
MCC
Oliver
Mar 17, 2012, 6:51:27 PM3/17/12
to
On 17/03/2012 22:24, Tickettyboo wrote:
> On 2012-03-17 08:00:39 +0000, ray said:
>
>> T
>
> in the park?
> for two?
>
> do tell :-)
Maybe ray thinks you got that to a "T"?
> On 2012-03-17 08:00:39 +0000, ray said:
>
>> T
>
> in the park?
> for two?
>
> do tell :-)
--
Oliver
Frogman
Mar 17, 2012, 6:59:39 PM3/17/12
to
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:37:28 -0000, Rabbit croaked:
> Silly me. It was one of those days :-(
Hmmm, Must make a note of this, Rabbits rememberer not working correctly
:-)
--
Regards
Frogman,
Most good judgment comes from experience,
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> Silly me. It was one of those days :-(
:-)
--
Regards
Frogman,
Most good judgment comes from experience,
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
Gordon H
Mar 17, 2012, 7:01:16 PM3/17/12
to
Tickettyboo
Mar 17, 2012, 7:42:46 PM3/17/12
to
--
Tickettyboo
Rabbit
Mar 18, 2012, 7:12:49 AM3/18/12
to
"Frogman" <uk_fr...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:16m4u87ywv17z$.dlg@frogman.plus.com...
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:37:28 -0000, Rabbit croaked:
>
>> Silly me. It was one of those days :-(
>
> Hmmm, Must make a note of this, Rabbits rememberer not working correctly
> :-)
I'll still remember long term though, like a (non) meeting in the top field
>
>> Silly me. It was one of those days :-(
>
> Hmmm, Must make a note of this, Rabbits rememberer not working correctly
> :-)
;-)
Frogman
Mar 18, 2012, 7:16:42 AM3/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:12:49 -0000, Rabbit croaked:
> I'll still remember long term though, like a (non) meeting in the top field
> ;-)
Ah, short term first then long time.............. I can wait ;-)
--
Regards
Frogman,
Theories pass, the Frog remains.
> I'll still remember long term though, like a (non) meeting in the top field
> ;-)
--
Regards
Frogman,
Theories pass, the Frog remains.
Rabbit
Mar 18, 2012, 3:10:14 PM3/18/12
to
"Frogman" <uk_fr...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:62h0dvr98yx7$.dlg@frogman.plus.com...
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:12:49 -0000, Rabbit croaked:
>
>> I'll still remember long term though, like a (non) meeting in the top
>> field
>> ;-)
>
> Ah, short term first then long time.............. I can wait ;-)
:-)
>
>> I'll still remember long term though, like a (non) meeting in the top
>> field
>> ;-)
>
> Ah, short term first then long time.............. I can wait ;-)
Frederick Williams
Mar 18, 2012, 5:39:21 PM3/18/12
to
Frederick Williams wrote:
>
> Ali wrote:
>
> > but less than the resolution of the PC real-time clock;
>
> Was that once 1/55 of a second, and is it still?
Here are the details. The IBM PC used an 8253 providing "ticks" at 18.2
>
> Ali wrote:
>
> > but less than the resolution of the PC real-time clock;
>
> Was that once 1/55 of a second, and is it still?
Hz. 1/55 = 0.0181818... so I was close. The 8253 was used in all PCs
compatible with the IBM PC up to 2005, but I have been unable to
determine whether it was used with the same divider (but if they were
truly compatible, they must have). The HPET, ticking at at least 10
MHz, only appeared in 2005, and, in any case cannot be used by XP though
it can be used with Vista and Windows 7. What its fastest ticking rate
is, I don't know. I may look into the matter more tomorrow.
--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
0 new messages