nemo_outis wrote:
It is frequently the case that OPs (for a variety of reasons) misstate or mispecify their problem or overconstrain its solution (either in terms of what can or must be done or what can't or mustn't). I submit that the current OP is a classic case.
The classic situation I've seen here on a regular basis is that the submittant would like to have a cohesive timing situation and does not care for syncronicity to the outside world. The classic answer seems to be a handwaving jedi gesture. You don't want that, you want "real" timekeeping. ( which imho is understandable, some here have put a significant amount of their lifetime into "real" timekeeping. The request thus is a distastefull abomination ) On the other hand cohesive group timing is quite sufficient in a lot of applications. And lacking in agility to jump all the hoops presented on the way towards "real" timekeeping this will just have to do in some cases. uwe _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
