Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Laughter is the Best Medicine - Tell us a joke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (18947)	4/30/2001 8:32:17 PM
From: SIer formerly known as Joe B.	Respond to of 62550

Wo-oah, what I want to know, where does the time go? Super-Accurate Atomic Clock Hates Sundays dailynews.yahoo.com Monday April 30 6:35 AM ET OTTAWA (Reuters) - A C$40,000 Canadian clock display designed to be accurate to within a few millionths of a second a year has lost an hour every Sunday this month, embarrassed officials admitted on Friday. They said a software bug had affected the large electronic Millennium Clock outside Ottawa's National Research Council (news - web sites) (NRC), which is directly linked to a C$1 million cesium clock responsible for maintaining official Canadian time. ``The clock itself is not losing time. The problem is a display, which doesn't display time properly,'' said a fed-up Jean-Simon Boulanger, the NRC's group leader of frequency and time. ``Why their software makes it go back an hour on Sundays I have no idea. We're providing the right time to the software but the software is providing something else to the display,'' he told Reuters. ``It's embarrassing.'' NRC officials have had to reset the clock every Monday morning this month. Boulanger said the display had not taken into account the fact that clocks went forward on April 1 to mark the introduction of Daylight Saving Time. Just to add to the humiliation, the display sports a plaque boasting that the Millennium Clock ``celebrates Canada's rich history of leadership in timekeeping''. Boulanger said the display had been plagued by problems since it was installed in June 1999 to celebrate the turn of the century. ``It was meant to be there only for passage of the year 2000 but someone said 'Why not keep it to the year 2001?' It's supposed to be taken away any time now,'' he said with more than a hint of relief

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (18947)	4/30/2001 8:32:17 PM
From: SIer formerly known as Joe B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 62550

Wo-oah, what I want to know, where does the time go? Super-Accurate Atomic Clock Hates Sundays dailynews.yahoo.com Monday April 30 6:35 AM ET OTTAWA (Reuters) - A C$40,000 Canadian clock display designed to be accurate to within a few millionths of a second a year has lost an hour every Sunday this month, embarrassed officials admitted on Friday. They said a software bug had affected the large electronic Millennium Clock outside Ottawa's National Research Council (news - web sites) (NRC), which is directly linked to a C$1 million cesium clock responsible for maintaining official Canadian time. ``The clock itself is not losing time. The problem is a display, which doesn't display time properly,'' said a fed-up Jean-Simon Boulanger, the NRC's group leader of frequency and time. ``Why their software makes it go back an hour on Sundays I have no idea. We're providing the right time to the software but the software is providing something else to the display,'' he told Reuters. ``It's embarrassing.'' NRC officials have had to reset the clock every Monday morning this month. Boulanger said the display had not taken into account the fact that clocks went forward on April 1 to mark the introduction of Daylight Saving Time. Just to add to the humiliation, the display sports a plaque boasting that the Millennium Clock ``celebrates Canada's rich history of leadership in timekeeping''. Boulanger said the display had been plagued by problems since it was installed in June 1999 to celebrate the turn of the century. ``It was meant to be there only for passage of the year 2000 but someone said 'Why not keep it to the year 2001?' It's supposed to be taken away any time now,'' he said with more than a hint of relief