On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:21:22 -0700 Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 06:39:21PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > What's the point of it? > > > > According to http://www.luvit.se/stefanp/lec_35_manual/swatch.html , > > "As a result Internet Time is the same all over the world." > > > > Well, gee, since Internet Time is equivalent to BMT, what's the > > big deal about "same all over the world" and "the era of time zones > > has disappeared"? The same would be true about GMT, American EST, > > or any other time zone that people standardize on. > > > > In fact, long ago, the US military standardized on GMT as "Zulu > > time", as opposed to "Lima", a.k.a. local time. > > > > They'd have had a fighting chance if they'd have stuck with GMT. > > In fact, I think that a metric system based on GMT is a good idea, > > since 1/100th of a "beat" is 0.864 seconds, which gives just as > > good a granularity as the second. > > > > BMT is, so far as I know, a marketing scam of Swatch. It has > zero intellectual merit, and near zero following in the internet > world. Existing, accepted time standards were developed as part of > the development of astronomy. In astronomy research, an accepted > standard of time is necessary for the exchange of data. The existing > internet standards piggy back on prior work in astronomy. There is > little room for useful innovation by a gaggle of marketers. > > HTH > -- > Paul E Condon > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > If it was commonly adopted, they would then turn round and copywrite it, and charge us by the second for access. We could really screw them up by running internet time on the basis of the Buddhist/Quantum theory principle of the 'eternal moment'. Regards, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
