"Brent Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, guys, the current time system had nothing to do with farmers.
I was referring to the quaint practice of basing time references on "days",
"months" and "years" which really only work on this one particular rock in
the great Universe.
> Farmers started work when there was enough sunlight, and quit when it got
> too dark.
"sunlight", "dark". *smirk* I love it! Again, earth-bound references.
> In fact, when the first New England farmers got clocks in the
> early 19th century, they would stop the pendulums before going out into
the
> fields so the clocks would wear out more slowly. After all, why would you
> need a mechanical device to tell you what time it was when you could look
at
> the sun and get that information?
And now we all run screensavers to make sure the empty rooms are
appropriately entertaining. I remember walking into one office after hours a
few years back and being surprised at all the After Dark fishbowls that were
running.
> The system of time zones we have today was first developed by the railroad
> industry in the United States in 1883 so they could synchronize timetables
> for nationwide and transcontinental railroad schedules. Before that, each
> city determined for itself what time it was by when the town clodk would
> strike noon.
Always embarassing to have the 2:00 Express run smack into the 4:00
commuter.
And let's not forget daylight savings time!
> [...]
> If you think it'd be good to get up and go to work at 1300 hours, just ask
> people in Russia how they liked it that they got programs broadcast from
> Moscow on Moscow time, whether they lived in Leningrad or Vladivostok, at
> least 11, maybe 12 or 13 time zones apart.
The problem wasn't the digits on the clock. It was the time of day. Just
because one timesource is used, doesn't mean that there can't still be taped
delays etc. to accomodate local lighting conditions, hot TV specials and
sporting events, etc.
> [...] I think they'd rather have their radio programs and tv programs
> pegged to their local time, or something close to it, like we do in the
U.S.
> with our only four time zones in the 48 contiguous states, and another
three
> zones for Alaska and Hawaii.
I was referring to having "timezones" but not different TIME. In MST,
"office hours" might be from 16:00-02:00. 16:00 would be 16:00 everywhere.
You'd still have to coordinate things with folks in other parts of the
world, but at least the TIME would be the same. "How's 04:00 for you?" "Nah,
too early. How about 06:00?" "Perfect. Talk to you at 06:00."
> If you read your history, you'll find that farmers resisted the time zone
> thing, believing it to be some invention of the devil or something, or at
> least a citified imposition on their lives that was totally irrelevant to
> them.
Again, (having read some history) I was referring to earth-based time
references. And it all depends on WHOSE history! The point being (all along)
that there's no "logic" to arguing that the Millennium begins in 2000 OR
2001. It's all based on guesswork, and really only important to the
inhabitants of this planet. I would think "logic" would be a bit more
universal.
- Bob
(God, where's my SHIP?)
> If people actually do ever live in space, they will probably at first use
> something like the Greenwich referrence point, or the time at the base
that
> controls the mission, like, say, Houston, or Moscow.
And then they'll start hurling rocks at us for being arrogant bastards
sometime during the second generation's lifetime! And I wouldn't blame 'em!
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
