I like Time.gov, personally; it was the first site I ever found around this concept and so it has a soft spot.<p>I keep finding all my physical atomic clock synced clocks (yes, I have more than one, they are cheap these days) disagreeing, sometimes by 2 seconds or more, which makes me laugh (great ideas ruined by poor implementation). I find many of the web sites (listed in comments or the original post) to also differ, perhaps for similar reasons of implementation choices.<p>I would presume all the sites work off various implementations of NTP, <a href="http://www.ntp.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ntp.org/</a> plus some trusted source.<p>I guess my question is: has anyone found a site which is really, really accurate by reducing all the latency and lag, so what you see on the screen really is, to whatever precision, accurate? And would said person have access to a really good source for the comparison point? I don't seem to have one. Yes, I should have stopped at 3 so that I could pick the 2 closest ones (like the old saying: 1 clock is unsure, 2 clocks are worse, but 3 at least lets you make a decision)<p>I wonder, would you need to have NTP on the client side synced to a trusted source (say, in java, flash, or javascript) to get a good reading? Any server serving over HTTP induces lag, I would think, and NTP is supposed to account for transmission delays, or so I recall.<p>Thanks for sharing, another interesting time site to add to the collection.
A lot of people are making disparaging comments about the acccuracy of the site's time estimation with little or no explanation/data. All things considered (three samples to estimate clock deltas and network delay) the time estimation is fairly accurate.<p>time.is reports my clock is:<p><pre><code> -0.004 seconds (±0.021 seconds).
</code></pre>
I have a stratum one time source on the local network (gps+pps) and my ntptime agrees with the time.is estimation:<p><pre><code> dfc@bushido:~$ ntptime
ntp_gettime() returns code 0 (OK)
time d3077752.4160a634 Sun, Mar 11 2012 15:11:14.255, (.255381196),
maximum error 260579 us, estimated error 3294 us, TAI offset 34
ntp_adjtime() returns code 0 (OK)
modes 0x0 (),
offset -4842.630 us, frequency 8.446 ppm, interval 1 s,
maximum error 260579 us, estimated error 3294 us,
status 0x6001 (PLL,NANO,MODE),
time constant 10, precision 0.001 us, tolerance 500 ppm,
</code></pre>
<i>NB: this is my laptop. so powersaving, heat fluctuations are adding a decent amount of uncertainty from a metrological standpoint.</i>
I'm wondering how atomic clocks in general get set in the first place. Did, at some point, scientists calculate when the sun was exactly overhead Greenwich and call that noon? Because I would think that that calculation would have a multi-second error, so setting your clock to the second would be pointless.<p>Or maybe there is no such thing as "actual physical time" and there is only what people have agreed to call the standard. But in that case why do time sources, such as time.gov and time.windows.com, still give different times? I would think Microsoft would have fixed any bugs in their NTP implementation by now, so it's not that. If it's just politics about nobody wanting to move to someone else's time, then there's no way to tell which source is the real standard, so your most practical choice is to synchronize your clock to the times you deal with. That is, set your clock to your clock at work, or an average of your friends clocks, or whatever source they get their time from. I don't mind the existence of central time sources, because they are better than having to go out and find someone else's clock, but they shouldn't call themselves official if they aren't actually official.<p>So, does anybody know how the starting time for central time sources is chosen, and if any source is worthy of being called "the real time"?
Exactly what I needed.<p>For the last few weeks, I've been trying to increase my productivity by getting rid of time tracking. So I decided to hide my computer's clock.<p>Sometimes, like when I have an appointment, I still need to check what time it is. Googling "time" doesn't always work (I don't know why exactly). So I bookmarked this site [1] but the information density is so high that I need to scan the page in order to get the time.<p>Time.is works quite well, with useful customization options, though it still carries bits of useless information (like the time zones at the bottom). But the time's font size is big enough to trigger instant focus.<p>UPDATE: as guptaneil pointed out, clicking the time (or navigating to <a href="http://time.is/just" rel="nofollow">http://time.is/just</a>) removes all the clutter. Thanks for the tip.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=328" rel="nofollow">http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=328</a>
Shows incorrect time for Chile. DST isn't until April 28th.
<a href="http://www.timeanddate.com/news/time/chile-longer-dst-2012.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.timeanddate.com/news/time/chile-longer-dst-2012.h...</a>
Nice job on this. I usually use <a href="http://everytimezone.com" rel="nofollow">http://everytimezone.com</a> but I like how I can configure this with the zones that matter to me. It would be nice if I could easily use my favorites when doing the Here -> There comparison.
OP, what does this line do?<p><pre><code> if (wn == 1) pwn = '1-ին շաբաթ';
</code></pre>
It looked like something related to week number; looks interesting.
I really like <a href="http://worldtimebuddy.com/" rel="nofollow">http://worldtimebuddy.com/</a> as it allows you to see time zone differences without the need to calculate it yourself.
I like it a lot. Easy to remember URL. However the services offered are not so good.<p>At least there is no RFC 867 and RFC 868 date on port 37 and port 13.<p>This is deprecated, I know, but rdate is still the easiest way to fix the date on a system which do not require precision. I did run my own minimal daemon on my DSL modem for the various gizmos I have that include busybox (thus rdate) and where recompiling to get a ntp would be overkill. (the right day and the right hour are more than enough)<p>time.nist.gov removed RFC 867 (port 13) and 868 (port 27) support. time-nw.nist.gov kept it a bit longer, then I used by DSL modem, which went in RMA and so guylhem.org is also down.<p>I'll try to email the author and offer to give a hand.
Reminds me of the radio clock that I have in the bathroom.<p>It is labeled "DCF signal - precision time", yet is off by hours most of the time (jumps randomly).<p>I keep it for the entertainment value. Guests always have a good chuckle when they enter the bathroom at 16:41 and leave it at 23:41.
The handling of internationalization is surprisingly good. Texts, including town names, are almost all shown in the preferred language, and the size variations introduced by the translations are well handled.
I would still prefer to have the option to select the timezone. Sometimes I want to attend some workshops that announce the time in one of the US timezones and its always difficult to do the conversion.
<p><pre><code> Your clock is 0.2 seconds slow.
Accuracy of synchronization was ±0.625 seconds
</code></pre>
If the result is within the margin of error, wouldn't it be better to just not tell me at all?
Simple, but awesome. About two years ago I had the idea (but never implemented) to try and re-make various since use web tools and calculators using modern web technology. Things like interest/mortgage calculators, voltage drop calculators, difference between two dates, etc.<p>So many of them like Time.gov rely on stuff like Flash or Java, or 1998 style Javascript, which I don't really dig. Definitely a nice little hole there for making something cool.
The clock display is nice but not a killer for me. Here&There time comparison in different time zones is the best I have seen. Full page calendar with multiple months is very simple but works great for me.
This is becomes my favorite site for time/date related stuff.
Very nice!<p>My little Ubuntu machine is -0.018 seconds (±0.009 seconds).<p>My MBP is -0.012 seconds (±0.021 seconds).<p>I recommend you add a percentile score of exactness, along with breakdowns based on platform, and suggestions about what to do if the percentile is disappointing.
I am seeing roughly +/- 0.1s accuracy range on my browser. Can someone please enlighten me on why we cannot reduce this further? I assume this page has <100ms response time, can't they get to a better accuracy range?
I've always been fond of the official navy.mil time site. It's an ascii lovers paradise: <a href="http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/timer.pl" rel="nofollow">http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/timer.pl</a>
Reminded me of this (Daylight Savings Time explained): <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84aWtseb2-4" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84aWtseb2-4</a> Madness!
Simple and amazing.<p>I used a simple shell script to query timezone info to find world time in CLI <a href="https://gist.github.com/2020097" rel="nofollow">https://gist.github.com/2020097</a>
Tell me I'm not the first to see the irony of a page full of comments debating ntp, GPS and atomic clocks, while there are two interesting front page stories about the value of ambitious goals.