TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: More on San Francisco and Oakland Numbering

Re: More on San Francisco and Oakland Numbering
Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:08:31 EDT

In a message dated Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:48:21 -0000, (Robert Bonomi) writes:

> In article <>, <> wrote:

>> The standard nationwide time for making changes was 3:01 a.m. Eastern
>> Standard Time, which would be 12:01 a.m. Pacifc Standard Time, still
>> on Sunday. (A day does began at 12:01 a.m.; it's not just a style
>> issue.)

> What if you're keeping track of time to seconds?

> Is "one second after midnight" _really_ part of the previous "day"?

> What about the middle of the day?

> Is "one second after mid-day" (12:00 noon) really still part of the
> 'morning'?

> I'll agree that there is an ambiguity about whether 'midnight' is part
> of the preceeding or succeeding day. I will, however, argue that if
> it is any interval _past_ "midnight" -- be it a minute, a second, a
> millisecond, a micro-second, a femto-second, or any smaller interval
> -- that there is no question that the time-tick is in the 'new', not
> the 'old' one.

There is certainly no argument from me on this point. For most things,
12:01 a.m. is sufficiently accurate. But when greater accuracy is needed,
you are quite correct.

Because of the ambiguity you cite, for most purposes 11:59 p.m. or
12:01 a.m. is sufficiently accurate. Many businesses where safety or
operations are concerned, prohibit the use of any instructions
involving 12 midnight or 12 noon. They only allow the use of 11:59
p.m. or 12:01 a.m., or in the case of noon, 11:59 a.m. or 12:01 p.m.

Wes Leatherock

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Steven Lichter: "Re: British Strowger SxS?"
Go to Previous message: Cellular-News: "Cellular-News for Friday 28th October 2005"
May be in reply to: Mark Roberts: "More on San Francisco and Oakland Numbering"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page