[time-nuts] Non electrical time-nuttery

J.D. Bakker jdb at lartmaker.nl
Sun Jan 10 22:28:22 UTC 2010


At 11:01 -0800 10-01-2010, Lux, Jim (337C) wrote:
>On 1/10/10 9:24 AM, "J.D. Bakker" <jdb at lartmaker.nl> wrote:
>  >> [...] readable by a causal bystander.
>>
>>  ...is one of the most apropos typoes I've ever seen.
>
>Indeed... But it could be right, eh? After all, something in the past led
>them to look at the clock and attempt to read it?

"I just looked at the clock, and now I know what time it is" [1]

>  > [whose customers are often pushing for acausal filters]
>
>Acausal? Or non-causal? Or "reverse causal" (anticausal)

Acausal, usually. It often boils down to some variant of:

"Can you fix this sampled low-pass filter so that its impulse 
response peaks at t=0?"

JD "I'll fix yer filter right proper, sah" B.

[1] Yes, I know there are several things that are wrong with such a 
statement, to a pedant of a time-nuttish persuasion. Still, Aristotle 
would broadly approve.
-- 
In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is 
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
                    -- RFC 1925, "Fundamental Truths of Networking"



More information about the time-nuts mailing list