Talk:Swatch Internet Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Time (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Switzerland (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Added section on beatnik satellite[edit]

Since the Beatnik Satellite article redirects here, it seems appropriate to add a section on the satellite itself. (Presumably it was hand-launched from the MIR station, however I did not find an adequate reference). I did add the section on the plan to broadcast on amateur radio frequencies, since that was well-documented in print media articles rhyre (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC link you provided as a reference is dead, do you have working one? Svick (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Including the current time in the article[edit]

I want to help my colleagues embrace the idea of decimal time. Swatch Time is still my favorite. I would really like to request that we add the current swatch time on this page which is a great entry to the exploration of digital time and at the same time providing a resource to verify the Swatch Beat. Jameschrislloyd (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Including a ticking clock in the article isn't technically possible. The article links to http://www.swatch.com/zz_en/internettime.html, however, which will tell you and your colleagues the current Swatch Time. --McGeddon (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh thanks McGeddon. I include a SwatchBeat .swf file on our Moodle portal and from a code standpoint that could be included on the page like a logo, but I suspect this might be considered too much an endorsement of a for profit company? Thanks for your feedback. I just learned of the wiki time group when making this section and I hope to learn much more about this issue. Jameschrislloyd (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
For various reasons (mostly usability) Wikipedia articles can't include embedded Flash. It's possible to use MediaWiki code to generate the current Swatch time in plain text, but only at the time at which the article is manually refreshed - after discussion on the New Earth Time article, consensus was against including such an example, as it wasn't really that helpful to the reader. --McGeddon (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What was the reception?[edit]

I see several examples of usage and initial adoption, but what about general reception? For how long did those who adopted the system continue to use or support it? Has the general public ever used it, and how did they react to it? Has anyone ever criticized it? None of these questions are currently answered in this article. —173.199.215.5 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Good questions! The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can answer them. Wikipedia is crowd-sourced, which means that anyone can be a contributor. If the answers exist somewhere, you are encouraged to do research to find them and edit the article accordingly. --Nike (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as the above IP addressed user did, I am going to make a suggestion but not make the additions my self. Of course, I am aware that I could do this, but as this article is of absolutely no interest to me and I know little about it beyond it's epic failure, I cannot provide a neutral representation merely a representation of it's failure which is too one sided in detail.

What I would like to suggest is a few changes; firstly it should be identified as a corporate gimmick, which is all it ever was. Secondly, it should be identified as a failed time system. Thirdly, the reasoning for this should be expanded upon, ie: it failed because it was just a corporate gimmick that was laden with trademark, corporate logos, and other such naming nonsense to do with branding and not a legitimate attempt at a universal time system.

The mere fact they called it 'Swatch Internet Time' is kind of a give-away. But that was the main reason no one would touch it with a ten foot pole, especially considering back then Swatch was pretty much the cheapest brand of watch you could get in the playground and not a reputable or even barely acceptable brand. Using the Swatch logo or name on your website would get an angry email from the company for misuse of a trademark, and yet they wanted you to use their 'time system' yet would threaten you for using it's name or the symbol they were using for it.

Gimmicks are often employed by big companies, it was even challenged whether the satellite was ever intended to operate or whether it was merely going to be used as a white elephant then salvaged for parts as it ultimately was. The general reception was abysmal, and I'm positive we can find a lot of supporting primary sources indicating all of this. But I suggest someone with a less negative viewpoint of this nonsense make the changes so it doesn't read like a beat down from the internet generation who were forced to roll our eyes while noobs told us about this cool new time system to use for modemmors!!1!!~! for the fiftieth time that day. :P

Also, Nike, I think I ran into you on Genie back in the day if you're the Nike I think you are! Man has it been a long time, and LOL LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT INTERNETS THING HEY! :D BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I did have the same name on GEnie, 20 years ago, although I don't know who you are or what I might have done that was memorable. As for Swatch, I think it's obvious from the article that it was a gimmick, and a failure if it was ever meant to be anything else. But saying so outright might be considered POV, unless you're quoting an outside source. --Nike (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"ie: it failed because it was just a corporate gimmick that was laden with trademark, corporate logos, and other such naming nonsense to do with branding and not a legitimate attempt at a universal time system" That's an opinion, and opinions aren't allowed in Wikipedia articles. Identifing it as failed also musn't be done; the article about Esperanto doesn't do it either... Com. BOY (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If a reliable source has written about how something failed, that can be quoted. The Esperanto article explains that the language "has not yet achieved the hopes of its founder to become a universal second language" and quotes some of the criticism it received and the theories as to why it failed. --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

More recent information[edit]

http://www.geekosystem.com/beat-swatch-internet-time/

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Leap seconds[edit]

Anyone know how leap seconds are represented and handled? 176.10.136.120 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

They aren't. --Nike (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
So does that mean it will continue to lag more and more behind UTC? 176.10.136.120 (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No, Internet Time is not an independent time scale, just a conversion of UTC, i.e. it is always one hour ahead of UTC. --Nike (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
To be more specific, although Swatch states that it is based upon "the Biel Meantime Meridian", in actuality a "day in internet time begins at midnight BMT (@000 Swatch .Beats) (Central European Wintertime)", according to their own web page, so what they call BMT is really just CEWT, which is UTC+1. If you use the converter on their web site, you will see that one second before midnight (23:59:59 UTC+1, CEWT or BST) is 999.beats, and midnight is 0. This is true no matter which year you enter, regardless of how many leap seconds have been added since then. (Of course, during summer time, 0.beats is 01:00 in Switzerland, but midnight in Portugal and the British Isles.) --Nike (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
As one .beat is 86.4 seconds long, we haven't had more than 86 leap seconds inserted and future leap seconds can not be predicted, using their calculator for this is pretty much useless. I could accept that 999 .beats is the last and 0 .beats is the first of each day, meaning then that the last .beat on a day with a leap second is one second longer. 176.10.136.120 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Since 0.beats is 23:00 UTC, 23:59:60 would be 41.beats, so that is the beat that would be one second longer. 41.beats lasts from 23:59:02.4 to 00:00:28.8 UTC, regardless of leap seconds, so sometimes it's 86.4 seconds, sometimes 87.4. Since this is a consequence of UTC, not part of the Swatch specification, it is not relevant to this article. --Nike (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)