Chris writes: > For most users I think that is reasonable. It's just not what one > expects to read on a "Time Nuts" list. Here we expect to see posting > from true nut-cases who want microsecond just because they can do it.
But how can you verify microsecond accuracy on Windows? Even the OS only has 10 ms resolution for the system clock. I think there are different ways to be nuts about time. I like time measurement that is extremely accurate over long periods. Like my Waveceptor watch, which is accurate to within 1 second in 30 million years over the long term (because it syncs with atomic time), although it's free-running accuracy is only about a few hundred milliseconds per day, and its probably off by a few tens of milliseconds regularly, due to propagation delay and such. For me, it's okay if the clock is 10 microseconds off, but it's not okay if it's off by 10 microseconds today, 20 usec tomorrow, 40 usec the day after, and so on. I guess it's the difference between time-of-day measurement and interval measurement. I'm particularly fascinated by time-of-day measurement, but much less so by interval measurement. Perhaps because TOD is easier to verify directly through human perception, whereas with interval measurement you quickly become dependent on machines for verification. -- Anthony _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
