Avoid Delta and Atlanta

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:46:53 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Miguel Cruz writes:

The functions performed by a mobile phone are a superset of those
performed by a watch (i.e., phones do everything watches do, and a whole
lot more). So the case for carrying a phone is much more compelling than
for a watch. And the case for carrying both is diminished.

I use my watch much more than I use a phone, so I continue to carry a
watch. Also, the watch is accurate, whereas the time on the cellphone
is not.

Interesting claim you're making, and one which has little basis in
fact, it will of course depend on what technology your mobile phone is
operating on, as certain formats rely on very accurate clocks and send
the exact time to the phone, they're likely a lot more accurate than
your watch.

Jim.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
The functions performed by a mobile phone are a superset of those
performed by a watch (i.e., phones do everything watches do, and a
whole lot more). So the case for carrying a phone is much more
compelling than for a watch. And the case for carrying both is
diminished.

I use my watch much more than I use a phone, so I continue to carry a
watch.

Let's put it this way: People who use their phones more than their
watches may find that the phone obviates the need for a watch. I haven't
worn a watch in 20 years, but I do find myself checking the time on the
phone once or twice a day, which is no hassle at all. The rest of the
time I rely on old habit; noticing clocks in shops and elsewhere as I
walk by, so I have a rough sense of the current time.

Also, the watch is accurate, whereas the time on the cellphone
is not.

In some places (e.g., USA) the time on the phone is set by the network
and I must assume that's very precise. It always agrees with the time on
my computer, which is a good sign.

Elsewhere I have to set it myself and I find that it loses a minute or
two a week, which is fine for my purposes. Do you require more precision
than that?

miguel
--
Photos from 40 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Malaysia; Thailand; Singapore; Spain; Morocco
Airports of the world: http://airport.u.nu

"JohnT" wrote:
"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
The functions performed by a mobile phone are a superset of those
performed by a watch (i.e., phones do everything watches do, and a
whole lot more). So the case for carrying a phone is much more
compelling than for a watch. And the case for carrying both is
diminished.

I don't need a mobile phone so I carry one very rarely. I do wear a watch
when I go out.

I should have qualified by saying "For people who need to use a phone
anyway".

miguel
--
Photos from 40 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Malaysia; Thailand; Singapore; Spain; Morocco
Airports of the world: http://airport.u.nu

Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:


The functions performed by a mobile phone are a superset of those
performed by a watch (i.e., phones do everything watches do, and a whole
lot more). So the case for carrying a phone is much more compelling than
for a watch. And the case for carrying both is diminished.


I use my watch much more than I use a phone, so I continue to carry a
watch. Also, the watch is accurate, whereas the time on the cellphone
is not.


A lot of them are time synced. My phone changes timezones when turned on
after arriving in a new timezone.

Jim Ley writes:

You're assuming the inconvenience was the getting it out of the
pocket, rather than the remembering to carry, transfer between
clothes, risk of losing etc.

No. Pocket watches were often attached to a chain that could in turn
be attached to clothing, precisely for the purpose of preventing what
you describe.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jim Ley writes:

Interesting claim you're making, and one which has little basis in
fact, it will of course depend on what technology your mobile phone is
operating on, as certain formats rely on very accurate clocks and send
the exact time to the phone, they're likely a lot more accurate than
your watch.

My watch is accurate to 1 second in three million years. No cellphone
does better than that.

In fact, I wasn't aware of any cellphones that do anything to keep
accurate time. Which ones have such a feature?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Miguel Cruz writes:

In some places (e.g., USA) the time on the phone is set by the network
and I must assume that's very precise.

It depends on the network; they don't necessarily set their clocks
carefully, although the smart ones do.

It always agrees with the time on my computer, which is a good sign.

You can use NTP to keep your computer within milliseconds of the
correct time. This is built in to recent versions of Windows,
although I can't remember if it is enabled by default (and it only
synchronizes once a week by default, which can leave your PC several
minutes off).

Elsewhere I have to set it myself and I find that it loses a minute or
two a week, which is fine for my purposes. Do you require more precision
than that?

Yes. I want it to be perpetually correct within a fraction of a
second. It's easy to find watches like this today, and they are
inexpensive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mrtravel writes:

A lot of them are time synced. My phone changes timezones when turned on
after arriving in a new timezone.

To what source are they synced?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jim Ley writes:

Interesting claim you're making, and one which has little basis in
fact, it will of course depend on what technology your mobile phone is
operating on, as certain formats rely on very accurate clocks and send
the exact time to the phone, they're likely a lot more accurate than
your watch.

My watch is accurate to 1 second in three million years. No cellphone
does better than that.


You would only be able to verify that claim if you measured the time errors
over 3 million years. Not even you could do that.

JohnT

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:47:58 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Jim Ley writes:

You're assuming the inconvenience was the getting it out of the
pocket, rather than the remembering to carry, transfer between
clothes, risk of losing etc.

No. Pocket watches were often attached to a chain that could in turn
be attached to clothing, precisely for the purpose of preventing what
you describe.

How does a chain make you remember to transfer it between clothes, or
remember to have it with you?

Jim.