Well you all made me check. My relatively simple Nokia cell with few bells and 
whistles has a 24 hr option.

Howard Ressel
Project Design Engineer, Region 4
(585) 272-3372

>>> "STANLEY DOORE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/16/07 3:11 AM >>>
Re: [USMA:38235] RE: Brand New Phone, 12 Hour Time.24 h time is used throughout 
the world in weather, airline schedules, watches etc. and then converted to 12 
h for public use in places as the US.

Military time is a misnomer since the 24 h clock is an international standard.  
It avoids confusion and takes less space to display (no a.m. or p.m. needs to 
be added).

The ISO date/time standard  format should be used worldwide in public since it 
also includes the time differential from UTC (formally GMT) instead of zone 
names.  Time zone names then could become obsolete.  And, the ISO date/time 
standard is being used more and more in records and the Internet for these very 
reasons. 

Regards,  Stan Doore



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Pat Naughtin 
  To: U.S. Metric Association 
  Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:25 AM
  Subject: [USMA:38236] RE: Brand New Phone, 12 Hour Time.


  Dear Mike,

  All of our train services here in Geelong, Australia, have 24 hour departure 
and arrival times.

  Cheers,

  Pat Naughtin
  PO Box 305 Belmont 3216
  Geelong, Australia
  61 3 5241 2008

  Pat Naughtin is manager of http://www.metricationmatters.com an internet 
website that focuses on the many issues, methods and processes that 
individuals, groups, companies, and nations use when upgrading to the metric 
system. Contact Pat Naughtin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


  On 2007 03 16 4:10 PM, "Mike Millet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


    A bit off topic here but do any countries actually use the 24 hour format 
in their day to day activities? I have heard it referenced on the BBC site but 
especially in the US and Canada the only time 24 hour format is used is in 
conjunction with military time and military operations. Do countries exist 
where people actually list the time as meeting at 13:30 etc? I've never heard 
anyone that I've met from the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, and a 
couple other countries  ever reference it.  Not meaning to be  rude just 
curious :). 

    Mike

    On 3/15/07, Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

      CDMA is actually more efficient with spectrum usage.  But I find battery 
life
      of CDMA phones to be less than GSM counterparts.  I also hate the lack of 
a
      SIM card in CDMA phones.  CDMA phones have traditionally lagged GSM 
phones in 
      technology adoption like Bluetooth, etc...

      Europe just got together and agreed on a standard and moved forward.  Most
      rest of world countries copied Europe with GSM.   Whereas in the United
      States, we let the markets decide. 

      Which is silly to me because you have very redundant network build outs.  
 So
      in any one area, you have AT&T Wireless/Cingular TDMA then GSM, 
Voicestream/T-
      Mobile GSM, Sprint CDMA, Verizon CDMA and Nextel iDEN. 

      Actually Verizon choosing CDMA was something of a big deal.  Verizon was
      partially owned by Vodafone, the European provider.  They obviously pushed
      for GSM.  Verizon had some deal with Qualcomm going (they rule CDMA) and 
      that's where they went.  Vodaphone over time got rid of their investment 
in
      Verizon.

      What sucked about Cingular buying AT&T Wireless was that really, that 
should
      have been Vodafone's deal.  (I could have gotten that Ferrari or McLaren 
      branded cell phone right?)   So the United States really should have had
      three GSM providers (Cingular, Vodafone and T-Mobile)....but alas, due to
      some shrewd dealings, the deal was given to Cingular.  Do some searches 
on 
      the deal, it was pretty sketchy.

      Nothing metric, but everything to do with the mindset of being different.

      On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:47:09 -0400, Carleton MacDonald wrote
      > Well, there is something related - CDMA is another case of the USA 
doing 
      > things differently than 80% of the rest of the world ...
      >
      > Wonder which is actually better.
      >
      > Carleton
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
      > Of Michael Payne
      > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 23:07
      > To: U.S. Metric Association 
      > Subject: [USMA:38224] RE: Brand New Phone, 12 Hour Time.
      >
      > Not that this has much to do with metric, but I switched from
      > Cingular to T-Mobile just over a year ago and I've found the
      > coverage with T-Mobile better using a GSM phone, I also use my phone 
      > worldwide.
      >
      > Michael Payne
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
      > To: "U.S . Metric Association" <[email protected]>
      > Sent: Friday, 16 March 2007 02:59
      > Subject: [USMA:38222] RE: Brand New Phone, 12 Hour Time.
      >
      > >>> You actually cared about TDMA coverage and left Cingular because of 
      > >>> that?
      > >
      > > Wow, you deserve the 12 hour time then.   hahahaha..   Of course, 
maybe
      > > I'm
      > > spoiled because I'm in Seattle.  Home of both AT&T Wireless (before 
      > > Cingular
      > > bought them) and T-Mobile.
      > >>>
      > >
      > > You bet.  In 2005 Cingular GSM coverage was only slightly better than
      > > T-Mobile, in 2004 it was experimental on the weaker 1900 MHz band 
only, my 
      > > phone switched to TDMA half the time.
      > >
      > > Nat
      > >
      > >
      > >






Reply via email to