Chronillogical

[Seldon2639]

I would have agreed with you back when it would have been difficult to synchronize watches, much less have a standardized clock. But, as you linked yourself, the official U.S time clock isn't difficult to get to. It wouldn't take much muss or fuss to set your watch to the official time, and unless your watch is broken, it would be almost perfectly accurate for a good long while before needing to be reset.

There's no reason not to acquiesce to the demands of your professor/teacher, since it's not difficult to make up the difference. Especially since you must have already been hoping to be just barely on time. So, don't change your watch if you think it's "asinine", and just show up a couple of minutes before you *absolutely have to be there*. You don't mention a previous class, so I'm presuming that it's just that you gave yourself just enough time to be there exactly on time.

Way I see it, being Early is inefficient. You just sit around waiting for something to start when you could have spent that time doing something constructive.

The issue with that is that there's almost no way to be exactly on time. In your case, you're almost always late, causing others to (essentially) be early. You, thus, waste their time by being late. If you were at least on time, you could start the thing when other people arrive, rather than forcing other people to be inefficient. Your being early is inefficient for you, your being late is inefficient for everyone else. I'd rather suffer some inefficiency of my own, rather than inflict it on others. Unless you want everyone to be late, in which case you're just moving the meeting back, and nothing has changed.

 

[Anarchemitis]

How I've always allocated times in my mind-clock, there's almost always at least two minutes of wiggle room.
Somebody tells me it's "A bit past 5" at 5:07 and I'm okay with that.

 

[Fightgarr]

I feel for yah man. 42 seconds "late" is a ridiculous accusation and to accuse someone of that it is almost impossible to be not be hypocritical. I've always had a big problem with always wanting to be ludicrously early for many things. This year I've finally learned to be relaxed about it. Being 3 minutes late for something is not a huge deal.

 

[Gotham Soul]

Time is a chaotic progression of instances. Watches and time zones are mankind's futile attempt to place rationality on forces beyond our control.

 

[Flunk]

No, they expect you to show up early so that by the time you're supposed to be there everyone is there and settled down. They don't really expect you to be stupidly precise, you're just concentrating on this too hard. Start showing up for class 5 minutes earlier more if it's an exam.

 

[Hey Joe]

You said you were about a minute late to a test?

You should have been there five minutes early in any case if the test was worth 20 per cent of your grade.

You're completely right though, time is always relative and there's absolutley no sure standard to which we can set our watches to. It's why my watch is always running 7 minutes fast, so that I'm early to absolutely everything.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Leeway my friend, not everyone is going to have the exact same time as, as you have clearly pointed out, everyone has slightly differing times on their watches which makes the idea of a true or correct time fairly meaningless. More like a correct time frame. I guess its kind of like the idea of averages in the body. The pH of your blood ranges from 7.35-7.40, there is no exact value to go by, you go by the reference values.

The only advice is maybe be a little earlier, if you don't mind me saying so (I'm sorry if I offend) to ensure you don't miss it, especially if its worth that much of your mark

 

[Captain Blackout]

Yes, a foot is an illusion because, being humans, we have only, as a race, seen a foot through one set of eyes: human eyes, so measurement could be a warped perception of space, as could color.

How much physics do you really have under your belt? A foot is a human device. It doesn't matter if we see a foot through our own eyes or not, it is what it is because that's how we defined it. The definition of a foot is based on a physical phenomena and is the same regardless of who or what you are. You're making an incredibly weak point.

I will agree that color definition is challenging to say the least, but you're now making a new point. I doubt you know what the challenges in color theory really are. So here's a question: Are you bringing up these points because they're well thought out or because you think they sound neat?