Steve,
> And UTC has failed miserably. POSIX says UTC has no leaps.
> Google says UTC has occasional days with stretches of seconds which
> are of varying lengths. De facto, there is no single UTC time scale.
Right! And many more examples of UTC fails -- the RTC of any unix computer. Any
windo
Overall he seems to make a good philosophical argument why solar time is
good for humans. But his conclusion seems confused.
"... let the airlines and the Internet companies use TAI".
Ah, the airlines already use GPS (TAI-like) for navigation, and "local
civil time" for scheduling, while the "
> On Mar 12, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
>
> Brooks,
>
> A couple more comments on your questions.
>
>> Many timekeeping systems seem to be designed for only indicating "now"
>> counting forward, including NTP, POSIX, and PTP, taking short-cuts to
>> avoid supplying full Leap Second
You are correct to not call biological cycles "clocks." Doing so is one
of my pet peeves, and I've recently published an article castigating the
psychophysics folks for doing so. The reference to that is:
Birth, Kevin. 2014. Non-clocklike Features of Psychological Timing and
Alternatives to the
My post was not to suggest that circadian cycles will be affected by leap
seconds or their absence as much as to point out that Mr. Folkman's
argument is a better argument against mean time than an argument in favor
of keeping the leap second.
Getting rid of the leap second will probably have no a
Steve,
POSIX does not say that UTC has no leaps, it says that POSIX has no UTC
(despite the superficial similarity).
Joe Gwinn
From: Steve Allen
To: Leap Second Discussion List
Date: 03/12/2015 01:22 AM
Subject:[LEAPSECS] UTC fails
Sent by:"LEAPSECS"
On Wed 2015
On 12 March 2015 at 05:21, Steve Allen wrote:
> On Wed 2015-03-11T11:04:57 -0700, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
>> The entire purpose of UTC is to provide a single timescale for all
>> human-related activity.
>
> And UTC has failed miserably. POSIX says UTC has no leaps.
> Google says UTC has occasiona
Hi Tom,
On 2015-03-12 02:57 AM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Brooks,
A couple more comments on your questions.
Many timekeeping systems seem to be designed for only indicating "now"
counting forward, including NTP, POSIX, and PTP, taking short-cuts to
avoid supplying full Leap Second and local-time me
Brooks Harris wrote:
>"In other words, let them simply stop adjusting for for leap seconds.
>Let the atomic clocks become progressively more wrong."
>
>Whoa! Hold the phone! What do you mean? Adjust TAI's frequency to
>match Earth?!?
No, he's clearly proposing to leave TAI exactly as it is, and ju
On 2015-03-12 11:57 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 12 March 2015 at 05:21, Steve Allen wrote:
On Wed 2015-03-11T11:04:57 -0700, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
The entire purpose of UTC is to provide a single timescale for all
human-related activity.
And UTC has failed miserably. POSIX says UTC ha
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 12:57 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> On 12 March 2015 at 05:21, Steve Allen wrote:
>> On Wed 2015-03-11T11:04:57 -0700, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
>>> The entire purpose of UTC is to provide a single timescale for all
>>> human-related activity.
>>
>> And UTC has failed m
On Mar 12, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> So why is keeping us inline with solar days so desirable? The rate of
> change is so slow and the number of people already out of sync with
> solar time on the second level is so large it seems like a lot of hassle
> for not much benefit when DUT1
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>> So why is keeping us inline with solar days so desirable? The rate of
>> change is so slow and the number of people already out of sync with
>> solar time on the second level is so large i
On Mar 12, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> It is a perfectly valid engineering argument: The cost to do X is exceeded by
> the benefit.
Neither the cost or the benefit have been quantified, nor the risks.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leap
Brooks wrote:
>> Many timekeeping systems seem to be designed for only indicating "now"
>> counting forward, including NTP, POSIX, and PTP, taking short-cuts to
>> avoid supplying full Leap Second and local-time metadata.
Warner wrote:
> A clock doesn’t need to know its past. But a time scale is m
15 matches
Mail list logo
