From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9fbc059a74d74032 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-01 13:29:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B17FB0B.FB6B695@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> From: Wes Groleau X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en,es,fr,pt MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Leap Seconds References: <9f85kg$eut$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B17B3B8.B0626F22@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9f8f8h$ide$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:28:59 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com 991427341 151.168.144.162 (Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:29:01 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:29:01 EDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7995 Date: 2001-06-01T15:28:59-05:00 List-Id: > Bzzzzzzzzzttt! Wrong Answer! :-) I can neither change the hardware I'm > programming nor can I change the specification of the data being sent to me. In the first place, I was teasing, but in the second place .... > Its always nice to simply define your problems away, .... > .... I'm not going to sweat it too much. Being off by a few seconds > is not going to kill the system and I am leaving a method open for the > operator to remotely download "tuning constants" which will include an > offset to time. If they really need to get the accuracy up to match the > incoming message, they can send me the number of seconds to adjust by. .... you just designed an implementation that doesn't need one. Quod erat desideratum. :-) (I am not a Latin scholar, nor do I play one on the internet.) > "Wes Groleau" wrote in message > news:3B17B3B8.B0626F22@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com... > > With such a clear statement of the problem, the solution becomes obvious. > > You need to either get such a clock or design an implementation that > doesn't > > need one. Which is what many of the posts were trying to do for you, sort > of. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau