On Mon 2012-11-26T18:30:09 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> Uhm, they run PTP, so what ?
That doesn't quite seem to be the case. The paper is at
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en//archive/spanner-osdi2012.pdf
In that is
The under
In message <20121126174849.ge24...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>As seen on the tz e-mail list, google has something that might
>want to put a Symmetricom trademark after the name
>
>http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/11/google-spanner-time/all/
Uhm, they run PTP, so what ?
As seen on the tz e-mail list, google has something that might
want to put a Symmetricom trademark after the name
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/11/google-spanner-time/all/
It may be too late for the ITU-R to act.
And google, beware, for at the picosecond level there is not a single
t
I view this incident with some relief. A mistake was noticed and
addressed relatively quickly.
In a classic experiment by Rotter, people continued to believe the time
given by a clock when it was running at only 25% its normal rate.
Rotter, George. 1969. "Clock-Speed as an Independent Vari
Le 26 nov. 2012 à 01:26, Steve Allen a écrit :
> On Sun 2012-11-25T19:59:14 +, Matsakis, Demetrios hath writ:
>> And I suppose many on this list will have even more to say ...
>
Like you Steve, I think the silence is basically due to what you are
complaining about, that is the lack of avai
