Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?

[David Maynard]

In message <[email protected]> David Maynard



That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some
system along the way assigned a header of Jan 1 1970 -0000, then
corrected for timezone shift.

Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.

 

[Tom Horsley]

That's usually because the date header was missing completely, and some

Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.

My theory: A lot of spam is sent by computers that have been taken
over by spam sending viruses. Computer owners who aren't bright
enough to set the time right are also not bright enough to install
anti-virus software or take other precautions to prevent their
computers from being turned into spam slaves, ergo lots of bad
times on spam .

P.S. http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/ntptime.html is the web
page for my NTP client to keep your windows system time set if
anyone is interested.

 

[Mxsmanic]

P.S. http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley/ntptime.html is the web
page for my NTP client to keep your windows system time set if
anyone is interested.

Recent versions of Windows already include an NTP client.

 

[Rich the Newsgroup Wacko]

Well, that's a lot of Bull

The company has tried to make the best of its name in English ads,
often with slogans along the lines of what you give above, but it
hasn't been very successful. Bull doesn't mean anything in French, so
it's not a problem in France, but it's a problem in English-speaking
countries. It was just bad luck that one of the original founders had
a Norwegian name that by some weird coincidence happened to look just
like an English word (Bull doesn't look very Norwegian to me, but
maybe it is [?]).

But, if they'd said, "Honeywell Bowl," they'd think you were talking
about a football game.

Or Chinese food. ;-)

 

[Rich Grise]

Things that seem 'obvious' in one culture can be anything but to someone
not familiar with it. I learned that one in the middle east when I went
for a public toilet and found myself looking at two identically shaped
figures labeling which was for males and females. The only difference
was one was white and the other was black but to a westerner used to the
skirt/pants distinction it was a bit of a mystery, especially when not
thinking real clear due to the urgency

So, did you find out in time?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.

Well, Y2K, of course. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[David Maynard]

So, did you find out in time?

Thanks,
Rich

Hehe. As a matter of fact, I did. I waited outside between the two till I
saw a local go in one.

It was one of those things that when you find out you feel doubly stupid.
Well, DUH, of course it's men-white.

 

[Thomas A. Horsley]

Recent versions of Windows already include an NTP client.

Yea, but as with almost all attempts Microsoft makes to interoperate
with networking standards, their client is badly broken (you can
probably find all the rants starting from www.ntp.org .
--email: [email protected] icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+

 

[David Maynard]

My theory: A lot of spam is sent by computers that have been taken
over by spam sending viruses. Computer owners who aren't bright
enough to set the time right are also not bright enough to install
anti-virus software or take other precautions to prevent their
computers from being turned into spam slaves, ergo lots of bad
times on spam .

Highly unlikely, especially after you trace it.

A more likely theory is there are plenty of stupid spammers.

 

[David Maynard]

Well, Y2K, of course. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Hehe. Sure.

I did go look at the 1969 header and it had a date of something like 20450,
which apparently wrapped and rolled into 1969 by the time Netscape finished
interpreting it.

The 2001 header was simply 2001.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Yea, but as with almost all attempts Microsoft makes to interoperate
with networking standards, their client is badly broken (you can
probably find all the rants starting from www.ntp.org .

It works perfectly on my system.

 

[David Maynard]

David Maynard writes:




Yes, but those major leaps in functionality are mostly history now.

Until the next one.

These days, the improvements usually involve multicolored transparent
menus, or larger and fancier 3-D icons, or other bells and whistles
that consume hardware and software resources but contribute nothing to
the basic purpose of the computer, for the average user.

I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to
the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a
productivity improvement.

'Bells and whistles" are often more useful than the cynic realizes. For
example, they let you know when the train is coming and to get off the track

The broader market (and especially the worldwide market) is only
slightly beyond DOS today.

You're either in a different world than I or you mean something more
cryptic than I'm able to decipher.

There may be plenty left to do; the problem is that nobody is doing
it.

Oh, come on. You're not seriously going to try telling me that you know
what 'everybody' is doing in software, are you?

Software companies tend to content themselves with adding useless
bells and whistles--software bloat--to their products with each
upgrade, because adding truly new features and functionality requires
a lot of expensive development and involves taking serious risks. The
idea is to milk existing business for all the money one can, so
companies are unwilling to take risks with novelty. The bigger the
company, the more true this becomes.

Depends on how one defines "truly new." Is Microsoft trying to invent the
'truly new' neural network emulator? Probably not. But that doesn't mean
there's nothing 'useful' left to do with the 'old style' desktop operating
system approach.

Maybe. So what next?

I don't know as it isn't my job to develop the next operating system. I'm
busy building the 'next generation' tube amplifier, remember

To justify an upgrade, I need something truly
interesting, and I just don't see that happening. The last upgrade I
found _interesting_ was from Windows 3.x to Windows NT (I never
bothered with Windows 95 and its ilk).

You and I have different standards then because I only need the new to be
'enough' more useful whether it's "truly interesting" or not and I wouldn't
go back to NT (assuming you mean NT4) because I find the new 'bells and
whistles' worth it.

 

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]

 

[clifto]

What's the advantage of doing so? And why can't servers simply reject
anything that is obviously far in the past?

Most MUAs sort by date ascending. That puts their spam right at the top
of the list.

 

[David Maynard]

Most MUAs sort by date ascending. That puts their spam right at the top
of the list.

I suspected it was something like that but I sort by date descending so
they're not only at the bottom but off the screen entirely most of the time.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Most MUAs sort by date ascending. That puts their spam right at the top
of the list.

Do they? I always have all my messages sorted with the most recent
first. I don't remember what the default is. It seems odd to put
most recent last, since that would require constant scrolling downward
to see the latest messages.

 

[Mxsmanic]

Until the next one.

As technologies mature, breakthroughs come less and less frequently.

I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to
the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a
productivity improvement.

It depends on what is meant by desktop. Graphic user interfaces
contributed to productivity in some ways, by extending the usefulness
of the computer beyond plain text, and by making multitasking
environments easier to manage.

You're either in a different world than I or you mean something more
cryptic than I'm able to decipher.

You're probably only looking at a handful of developed economies. The
entire world is much further behind. Even in developed countries,
there are large institutional users of computers that are still
struggling with 16-bit Windows. And Windows 9x is still very common.
Where I work, everyone is still on Windows 9x.

Oh, come on. You're not seriously going to try telling me that you know
what 'everybody' is doing in software, are you?

I don't have to know. It's a general principle, applicable to
software like anything else. Why risk billions on a new software
product that may or may not succeed, when you can make almost as much
by adding a few "features" to an existing produce with virtually no
risk and very low cost and then charge for upgrades?

Depends on how one defines "truly new." Is Microsoft trying to invent the
'truly new' neural network emulator? Probably not. But that doesn't mean
there's nothing 'useful' left to do with the 'old style' desktop operating
system approach.

I suppose there are some people who look forward to things like
aggressive, and intrusive DRM, or filesystems that are designed to be
continually searched and indexed, but I do not, and I don't think the
majority of people care.

You and I have different standards then because I only need the new to be
'enough' more useful whether it's "truly interesting" or not and I wouldn't
go back to NT (assuming you mean NT4) because I find the new 'bells and
whistles' worth it.

Yes, I mean NT 4. Of course, XP looks uncannily like NT, especially
if you peek behind the superficial user interface.

 

[Stan Blazejewski]

Sorta reminds me of the old joke .....

NASA spent millions on designing a ball point pen that would work in zero
gravity (or up side down in gravity).
The Russians use a pencil!

--

Australia isn't "down under", it's "off to one side"!

[email protected]
www.cobracat.com (home of the Australian Cobra Catamaran)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cobra-cat/

 

[David Maynard]

Sorta reminds me of the old joke .....

NASA spent millions on designing a ball point pen that would work in zero
gravity (or up side down in gravity).
The Russians use a pencil!

Yes, I sometimes play with that one for the obvious lesson that more
complex isn't necessarily better but it's just as important to tell, as
Paul Harvey says, "the rest of the story."

Fact is, both NASA and Russia used pencils in the beginning and both, yes
both, ended up using pens because, you see, as 'obvious' as the pencil's
advantages are the lead tended to sometimes break and float around in the
0G environment creating a hazard to humans and electronics alike and
pencils burn real well, both the wood and the 'lead' (which is really
carbon), in an oxygen enriched atmosphere. Put simply, they ain't safe and
it was after the Apollo 1 fire that NASA decided to seek a writing
instrument that would not burn.

Fisher did all the development, ate the 1 million development cost, and
sold the pens to NASA for $2.95 each, the first 400 going to NASA in 1967,
and the Russians ended up using the same Fisher pen.

But lead pencils were used on all Mercury and Gemini space flights prior to
1968.

So the 'obvious' isn't always such a great idea after all

 

[Fred Abse]

Well, that's a lot of Bull

I'm still waiting for Bull and Siemens to set up a joint AI venture