Why aren't computer clocks as accurate as cheap quartz watches?

In almost any instance where a high degree of precision and synchronization is needed, the computer will be running a version of NTP software which can provide precision time from even very poor CPU timebases.

"Ordinary" computers don't need that degree of precision, and a once-or-twice a day comparison to an NTP server somewhere on the 'net is all that's required.

Isaac

Sometimes you have to be able to correlate or synchronize events over long distances with great accuracy (fractions of a second).

Yes.

Yes.

There are many applications for accurate time. In fact, the more accurate time one can obtain, the more useful applications become practical and available.

Possible. But that doesn't explain the ones dated 2001.

My theory: A lot of spam is sent by computers that have been taken over by spam sending viruses. Computer owners who aren't bright enough to set the time right are also not bright enough to install anti-virus software or take other precautions to prevent their computers from being turned into spam slaves, ergo lots of bad times on spam :-).

P.S.

Well, Y2K, of course. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Highly unlikely, especially after you trace it.

A more likely theory is there are plenty of stupid spammers.

Hehe. Sure.

I did go look at the 1969 header and it had a date of something like 20450, which apparently wrapped and rolled into 1969 by the time Netscape finished interpreting it.

The 2001 header was simply 2001.

Recent versions of Windows already include an NTP client.

Yea, but as with almost all attempts Microsoft makes to interoperate with networking standards, their client is badly broken (you can probably find all the rants starting from

--

email: snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics

It works perfectly on my system.

Until the next one.

I remember people who said a desktop itself didn't contribute anything to the "basic purpose of the computer" either but it's a heck of a productivity improvement.

'Bells and whistles" are often more useful than the cynic realizes. For example, they let you know when the train is coming and to get off the track ;)

You're either in a different world than I or you mean something more cryptic than I'm able to decipher.

Oh, come on. You're not seriously going to try telling me that you know what 'everybody' is doing in software, are you?

Depends on how one defines "truly new." Is Microsoft trying to invent the 'truly new' neural network emulator? Probably not. But that doesn't mean there's nothing 'useful' left to do with the 'old style' desktop operating system approach.

I don't know as it isn't my job to develop the next operating system. I'm busy building the 'next generation' tube amplifier, remember ;)

You and I have different standards then because I only need the new to be 'enough' more useful whether it's "truly interesting" or not and I wouldn't go back to NT (assuming you mean NT4) because I find the new 'bells and whistles' worth it.

Most MUAs sort by date ascending. That puts their spam right at the top of the list.

I suspected it was something like that but I sort by date descending so they're not only at the bottom but off the screen entirely most of the time.

Yes, I sometimes play with that one for the obvious lesson that more complex isn't necessarily better but it's just as important to tell, as Paul Harvey says, "the rest of the story."

Fact is, both NASA and Russia used pencils in the beginning and both, yes both, ended up using pens because, you see, as 'obvious' as the pencil's advantages are the lead tended to sometimes break and float around in the

Fisher did all the development, ate the 1 million development cost, and sold the pens to NASA for $2.95 each, the first 400 going to NASA in 1967, and the Russians ended up using the same Fisher pen.

But lead pencils were used on all Mercury and Gemini space flights prior to

So the 'obvious' isn't always such a great idea after all ;)

Do they? I always have all my messages sorted with the most recent first. I don't remember what the default is. It seems odd to put most recent last, since that would require constant scrolling downward to see the latest messages.

As technologies mature, breakthroughs come less and less frequently.

It depends on what is meant by desktop. Graphic user interfaces contributed to productivity in some ways, by extending the usefulness of the computer beyond plain text, and by making multitasking environments easier to manage.

You're probably only looking at a handful of developed economies. The entire world is much further behind. Even in developed countries, there are large institutional users of computers that are still struggling with 16-bit Windows. And Windows 9x is still very common. Where I work, everyone is still on Windows 9x.

I don't have to know. It's a general principle, applicable to software like anything else. Why risk billions on a new software product that may or may not succeed, when you can make almost as much by adding a few "features" to an existing produce with virtually no risk and very low cost and then charge for upgrades?

I suppose there are some people who look forward to things like aggressive, and intrusive DRM, or filesystems that are designed to be continually searched and indexed, but I do not, and I don't think the majority of people care.

Yes, I mean NT 4. Of course, XP looks uncannily like NT, especially if you peek behind the superficial user interface.

And that was the point, along with the summary of the general principle you snipped out, that "'Bells and whistles" are often more useful than the cynic realizes."

Which has, for all practical purposes, nothing to do with the matter of whether companies do 'new things', or just add 'fluff', as people who do not use the things are not in the market.

And I can find folks in "large institutions' that don't use computers at all. You're overstating another fragment.

Yes, and I suspected that by "DOS" you meant to include anything even remotely connected to it. Not exactly cricket as the GUI *was* the (second half) of the 'big idea' that made Microsoft what it is (and began the gist of this thread section)

Sounds logical except it isn't a "general principle" and companies introduce new products all the time. Some succeed, like Apple's IPOD, and some don't. And it's pretty much the same with startups except you don't pay no mind to failed startups and they don't have anything else to sustain them when they do. Not to mention that most startups are the 'new company' equivalent to your 'modify existing product' approach, making something akin to what exists with some new 'bells and whistles' added: their 'better version' of it.

Plus, it's becoming increasingly clear that you don't consider anything that even remotely resembles the existing product to be anything more than a 'bell and whistle' upgrade while I have stated that a sufficient performance improvement is my criteria. E.g. If the topic were cars it seems that nothing short of magnetic levitation would satisfy your need for "truly interesting" while I would consider a hybrid significant enough. Hell, I might even consider "rides like a car but has the payload capacity of a truck" sufficient enough because it fills a useful functional criteria regardless of not being "truly interesting."

If that were the entire feature list I might agree with you, but it isn't. Nor is the 'end user' the entire market.

Compared to NT4, a fully functional PnP alone is reason enough.

Now, 'peaking behind the superficial user interface' really *is* something the majority of people don't care about.

Sorta reminds me of the old joke .....

NASA spent millions on designing a ball point pen that would work in zero gravity (or up side down in gravity). The Russians use a pencil!