From: esp@snet.n   
      
   On 11/3/2025 7:54 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:   
      
   >   
   > I don't see any advantage of using GPS vs. radio signals to keep clocks   
   > and wrist watches properly set in almost all areas of the continental   
   > US, Japan, or western Europe where there are time calibration radio   
   > signal transmitters.  No lay citizen needs to have their timepiece set   
   > with the accuracy of a fraction of one second.  No unobstructed view of   
   > the sky is required with radio signal calibration.  My "atomic" wrist   
   > watch and clocks are kept in locations that no view of the sky and they   
   > receive the radio signals despite screens on the windows, steel girder   
   > building construction, and my condo unit on a lower floor where   
   > surrounding buildings at all points of the compass are far higher.  That   
   > feature makes radio signal calibration much more practical for the lay   
   > citizen, especially those who live in urban settings with many tall   
   > buildings that are likely to prevent a clear view of the sky. Where GPS   
   > comes into it's own is in locations where time calibration radio signals   
   > are not available, or for applications where maximal precision of   
   > timekeeping is essential.  Ideally, the timepiece would include the   
   > ability to switch between radio signal reception and GPS reception at   
   > the discretion of the user.  Bulkier and more expensive, but with   
   > essentially total planet capability for automatic, accurate time keeping.   
      
   Would it matter where the signal comes from?  What if you live near the   
   border of a time zone?   
      
   My GPS for navigation knows where I am within about 10 feet, the local   
   radio station can be tuned for miles.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)