Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Miguel Cruz on 15 Aug 2006 22:09 Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: > Miguel Cruz <spam(a)admin.u.nu> wrote: >> If you know the location of the clocks you're setting, and you know >> the location of your time beacon, then it's a trival matter to >> cancel out the radio propagation delay. >> >> This is entirely different from the vagaries of time sync propagation >> across the internet, which is Mxsmanic's red herring of the day. > > Propagation delays are not necessarily constant, although they > may sometimes be constant enough for the purpose at hand. Not to > mention it takes already syched clocks to determine the delay. If you have line-of-sight to your beacon then you should be able to use your location (as measured with GPS or even from a map) to determine the delay. > For truly precise work, timekeeper synchronization can be tricky. > But a minute or two will usually get me to the movies on time. Maybe for me and you, but if mxsmanic is one one-billionth of a second late to the movies his day is ruined. 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
From: Hatunen on 15 Aug 2006 22:29 On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:09:10 -0400, Miguel Cruz <spam(a)admin.u.nu> wrote: >Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote: >> Miguel Cruz <spam(a)admin.u.nu> wrote: >>> If you know the location of the clocks you're setting, and you know >>> the location of your time beacon, then it's a trival matter to >>> cancel out the radio propagation delay. >>> >>> This is entirely different from the vagaries of time sync propagation >>> across the internet, which is Mxsmanic's red herring of the day. >> >> Propagation delays are not necessarily constant, although they >> may sometimes be constant enough for the purpose at hand. Not to >> mention it takes already syched clocks to determine the delay. > >If you have line-of-sight to your beacon then you should be able to use >your location (as measured with GPS or even from a map) to determine the >delay. Line of sight isn't your most probable case. If you do have line of sight, a surveyor's transit will give you the distance. But note that the index of refraction of air varies somewhat, resulting in slightly varying propagation times and even the surveyors instruments will be affected by it. Having both your clocks to be synched in line of sight with the same master clock can be a problem. Now, there's two ways to synch clocks. The first is to synch them to each other, and to hell with the actual time so long as they read the same thing. They may both say 17:00 even though it is actually 17:33:12, but they are synchronized. The other is to have them synched to tell accurate time, as in syching to the master clock at the US NIST. There ain't a chance in hell you're going to have line of sight to that clock, even though it is the master clock for the entire USA. NIST time is available on the WWV short wave radio stations at 2.5, 5.0, 10.0 mHz. GPS depends on the synchronicity of clocks on satellites, so using GPS to establish distance is also a bit variable and pushes the problem back one step. The problem for the GPS clocks is to have such accurate synchronization to each other that even relativistic dime dilation must be accounted for. >> For truly precise work, timekeeper synchronization can be tricky. >> But a minute or two will usually get me to the movies on time. > >Maybe for me and you, but if mxsmanic is one one-billionth of a second >late to the movies his day is ruined. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 15 Aug 2006 22:32 On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:41:35 -0700, dgs <dgs1300(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >JohnT wrote: > >> "Martin" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message >> news:15ltd2db8pfgapohehgl4pcbm5kj8v38rm(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>Mixi loves being miserable. It looks like he will chose Seattle. >> >> Forget Mixi. It sounds good to me,too. Do you think Carole may have some >> spare accommodation? > >Carole forgot to mention that Seattle had a mini heat wave already this >summer, and it's been warm at other times too. Because Seattle's >climate has been historically cool, air conditioning isn't that >common; most people in the area wonder why anyone would even have it. > >Naturally, this doesn't bother normal people who can function in a >variety of climactic conditions, and of course, now that it's known >that it occasionally gets warm in Seattle and air-con isn't that common, >I'm sure a certain fellow in a cramped little Paris flat will continue >to run his air conditioner 24/7, plastic bags included. > >Oh, and Seattle population is barely 600,000; the metro area is less >than three million. Small town, according to Atkielskian ISO Sub- >standard counting convention, so not attractive as a place to live. No place that abounds in banana slugs is an attrctive place to live. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on 15 Aug 2006 22:34 On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:08:42 +0000 (UTC), BB <bbauerMuNgE(a)freeshell.org> wrote: >On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:41:35 -0700, dgs wrote: > >> Oh, and Seattle population is barely 600,000; the metro area is less >> than three million. Small town, according to Atkielskian ISO Sub- >> standard counting convention, so not attractive as a place to live. > >Just so Mixi doesn't start looking for nearby alternatives: Portland is >even smaller. We have heat waves too. And alcohol is freakin' everywhere - >we have the largest number of breweries per-capita of any city in the >world, and something like 80 wineries in the area. Its just awful! Try >Vancouver. But that's only across the Columbia River from Portland. By the by: Portland has a bit of a potential problem with volcanoes. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Tchiowa on 15 Aug 2006 23:29
Dave Frightens Me wrote: > On 14 Aug 2006 18:09:13 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Jordi wrote: > > >> No, they're not. > > > >Spoken like a true Euro who have never been to the US. > > > >Before you come up with the "smart" response, I've been to Europe > >probably 100 times and visited a large number of European countries. > > Nice one. How come you have such an odd view of Europe? Is it because > you are lying? No, it's because I've been all over the world and have had the opportunity to compare various cultures. > >> There's history, you see. Are you by any chance pretending the US is > >> exempt from those? > > > >No. Just pointing out the fact that the reason so many Euros have > >passports is due to hatred and bigotry, not some cultural superiority > >as has been implied. > > Very bizzare response. Yes, I find European history quite odd myself. I assume that you're not trying to claim that the reasons that Europe is chopped up into a few dozen small countries is *not* because of the hatred and bigotry that has marked your entire history. > >> > > No, we're talking two completely different things. All this came after > >> > > you said more or less 'what's the use of holidays if people don't have > >> > > money to spend', Europeans do have enough money to keep a... say > >> > > 'western' lifestyle without having to work 51 weeks a year, that's all. > >> > > >> > But their "western" lifestyle is lower than American's. > >> > >> In what sense? 1.0 litre less of engine?, 4 less inches on a flat TV? > >> Having some real vacation weighs substantially more on overal quality > >> of life. > > > >As do a lot of other things. Most Americans have "real" vacations and > >most have more to spend on their vacations that Euros do. > > That is meaningless, as you included "real", which could mean anything. No, Jordi included "real". I quoted him. Try to keep up. > >> If you are talking on an international level, you will see many of > >> these allegedly burdened employers competing hand to hand with other > >> 'unburdened' ones. > > > >With a whole lot less employees which is demonstrated by the high > >unemployment rates in Europe. > > You are talking about just which countries out of the forty or so? All the ones in the G-7. Pretty much all the countries in Europe, period. |