On 2015-04-30, at 14:57, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> On 2015-04-30, at 14:37, Ed Gould wrote:
>>
>> I am thinking that the URL is "broken" by the listserv.
>>
>> Ed
>>
> I suspect otherwise. After carefully repairing and testing your URL,
> I'm submitting it again via OS X 10.6.8 Mail.app. I'll s
On 2015-04-30, at 14:37, Ed Gould wrote:
>
> I am thinking that the URL is "broken" by the listserv.
>
> Ed
>
I suspect otherwise. After carefully repairing and testing your URL,
I'm submitting it again via OS X 10.6.8 Mail.app. I'll see what happens.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release
Paul:
I am thinking that the URL is "broken" by the listserv.
Ed
On Apr 30, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:55:24 -0500, Ed Gould wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421132031.htm?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:
2015 12:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: O/T Strontium atomic clock accurate to the second --
over 15 billion years --
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:52:09 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:31:09 +, Vernooij, CP wrote:
>
>>They can claim anyth
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:55:24 -0500, Ed Gould wrote:
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421132031.htm?
>utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:
>+sciencedaily/strange_science+(Strange+&+Offbeat+News+--+ScienceDaily)
>
>(watch the wrap)
>
Ed, you should use a better
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:52:09 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:31:09 +, Vernooij, CP wrote:
>
>>They can claim anything, who is gonna check this and where
>>can I complain after 15b years if my clock appears to be not
>>that accurate then?
>
>Why shouldn't it be that accurat
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Tom Marchant <
000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:31:09 +, Vernooij, CP wrote:
>
> >They can claim anything, who is gonna check this and where
> >can I complain after 15b years if my clock appears to be not
> >that a
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:31:09 +, Vernooij, CP wrote:
>They can claim anything, who is gonna check this and where
>can I complain after 15b years if my clock appears to be not
>that accurate then?
Why shouldn't it be that accurate? After all, a second is currently
defined in terms of atomic
ment
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such
purpose.
From: Elardus Engelbrecht
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 04/30/2015 02:24 AM
Subject:Re: O/T Strontium atomic clock accurate to the second --
over 15 billion years --
Sent by:
il 30, 2015 1:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: [EXTERNAL] O/T Strontium atomic clock accurate to the second -- over
15 billion years --
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421132031.htm?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:
+sciencedaily/strange_sci
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Ed Gould wrote:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421132031.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+sciencedaily/strange_science+(Strange+&+Offbeat+News+--+ScienceDaily)
>
And I can just imagine it: The first one is set b
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of John Gilmore
Sent: 30 April, 2015 13:59
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: O/T Strontium atomic clock accurate to the second -- over 15
billion years --
The point of most such efforts is not to measure long intervals , even
millenia, with great accuracy; it is to permit
The point of most such efforts is not to measure long intervals , even
millenia, with great accuracy; it is to permit the short, very short,
intervals of time between successive events within, say, a CP to be
measured accurately.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Shane Ginnane wrote:
> You would
You would really hate to be more than a second late for being vapourized by the
sun when it goes "red giant".
Shane ...
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu wi
, 2015 8:24
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: O/T Strontium atomic clock accurate to the second -- over 15
billion years --
Ed Gould wrote:
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421132031.htm?
>utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:
>+sciencedail
Ed Gould wrote:
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421132031.htm?
>utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:
>+sciencedaily/strange_science+(Strange+&+Offbeat+News+--+ScienceDaily)
Thanks for this just in time OT post, but my dear Watson, is it really that
accurate?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150421132031.htm?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:
+sciencedaily/strange_science+(Strange+&+Offbeat+News+--+ScienceDaily)
(watch the wrap)
--
For IBM-MAIN
17 matches
Mail list logo
