Future Perfect - Everything's Rosy

« Resolution, Error Rates | Main | Technologies Around Spaces »

How Real-Time is Real-Time?

Status update. Brighton, 2006

Bus stop in Brighton, showing the time it will take for the number 1 bus to Whitehawk - 45 minutes.

Knowing how long something will take can make the time passing shorter not least because it allows a person to focus attention on other activities - reading a magazine, watching Mobile TV or text messaging for example. But just how accurate is this information? Time estimates can vary considerably according to different traffic conditions so the amount of time a bus takes to arrive may rise as well as fall.

What granularity of information is sufficient to be useful? Just how real-time does real-time need to be?

Writing from Tokyo | February 27, 2006 | Permalink




Comments

I think I read something about this, although it might have been in Edinburgh. They were tracking the busses centrally using GPS, and their system was tied to the traffic light system. If a bus was running late, they'd ensure it got a few green lights in a row in order to make up time!

Posted by: Paul Farnell at February 27, 2006 11:47 PM

Related:

"Time folds and unfolds in the rhythm of heartbearts, which leads to a theory."

http://ftrain.com/AccordionTimeNPR.html

Posted by: Joshua Kaufman at February 28, 2006 1:23 AM

I remember hearing/reading, that an hour was standardized, to my understanding and recollection, when the textile industry in the middle ages, was starting to emerge in Europe. Before that, they had 12 day hours and 12 night hours, and those hours was set into 12 discreet pieces between sunrise and sunset. Thus the working day was of different length in different regions. The standardized time is nowadays pervasive, but we still don't have an internal clock. We are einsteinian moving bodies which rely on externalizations of time to co-ordinate our activities, etc. calendars, timepieces, schedules, etc. in relation to time. This makes us time-travellers by our very nature. :)

Posted by: vt at February 28, 2006 7:56 PM

@vt: Profound.

There's such a stark contrast between our two comments... I need to be more thought-provoking :-)

Posted by: Paul Farnell at March 1, 2006 9:43 PM

ok, i was kinda thinking that if we, as humans, don't have an internal clock and all the technologies around us have the clock and we are using many of them, what does that do to us? i think the key to succesful, personal timepieces and organizers of the modern age would be something, which enable you to control the granularity of time according to your personal preferences, ie. enable to make time relate to oneself, more than to others. this would also have to reflected to the visual output. pimp watches are doing something similar to this, but still quite limited by the physical reality: http://www.pimp-watches.com/en/

Posted by: vt at March 3, 2006 4:57 PM

Watching mobile TV? hahahahaha.

Aren't researchers meant to have their feet firmly planted in the real world?

Posted by: Anon at March 5, 2008 1:41 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?