On Wed 2011/02/16 01:34:57 -, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>> I have been saying that, as a reason for changing UTC today, it is
>> a specious argument that should be rejected.
>
>Yes.
Agreement!
>It's also a bogus argument for keeping leap seconds.
If any
Tony Finch :
> [...]
>
> There is already code to handle leap seconds like timezones, but it is
> incompatible with POSIX and large amounts of other code and with NTP and
> other time broadcast systems.
>
Of course you are exactly right.
Now, consider an application that wants to support BOT
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Paul Sheer wrote:
>
> Have you looked at the Olson source?
Yes.
> In any case, whatever solution ye'all come up with should not
> merely be In Principle. It should come as a patch on some real code.
No patches are needed.
If leap seconds are abolished then POSIX's model of
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Mark Calabretta wrote:
>
> The quadratic calamity is one of the few concrete arguments given by
> the proponents of dropping leap seconds (viz the GPS World article).
I had another look at the article, and it doesn't use the quadratic
increase DUT1 as an argument against UTC.
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 22:46 -0700, Rob Seaman wrote:
> What's the point?
>
your discussions circle around standards and law
yet presently here on earth no-one follows these standards or laws
there is merely "crowd convention"
the challenge is not to study 150 years of committee minutes and t
On 15 Feb 2011 at 11:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> So everybody using NTP and deriving GMT withut applying DUT are in
> breach of the law ?
Technically they are, if they use such a time for legal purposes (as
opposed to just privately having it on their wall or PC, where nobody
can force anybo
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>> Mean Solar Time = UT1 = GMT:
> So everybody using NTP and deriving GMT withut applying DUT are in
> breach of the law ?
They're simply getting it wrong. The law doesn't require the use of GMT
for everything; it just defines what legal time is.
If it came to a lawsuit ov
In message , Ian Batten wri
tes:
>Mean Solar Time = UT1 = GMT:
So everybody using NTP and deriving GMT withut applying DUT are in
breach of the law ?
I bet more people would be surprised and in violation, than you will
find in compliance...
For one thing, all the Rugby receiving radio-controlle
On 15 Feb 11, at 1011, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20110215100536.gd78...@davros.org>, "Clive D.W. Feather" writes:
>> Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>
The UK's standard time broadcast, which is funded by the government,
contains DUT1 in a format which doesn't permit |DUT1|>0.9.
In message <20110215100536.gd78...@davros.org>, "Clive D.W. Feather" writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>>> The UK's standard time broadcast, which is funded by the government,
>>> contains DUT1 in a format which doesn't permit |DUT1|>0.9.Whatever
>>> people argue (rightly) about the de facto le
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>> The UK's standard time broadcast, which is funded by the government,
>> contains DUT1 in a format which doesn't permit |DUT1|>0.9.Whatever
>> people argue (rightly) about the de facto legal time in the UK being
>> UTC, the de jure legal time is "GMT" which is taken to
In message <8e992e8a-cc16-44ec-a73e-e569d9395...@batten.eu.org>, Ian Batten wri
tes:
>The UK's standard time broadcast, which is funded by the government,
>contains DUT1 in a format which doesn't permit |DUT1|>0.9.Whatever
>people argue (rightly) about the de facto legal time in the UK being
>
On 15 Feb 2011, at 05:46, Rob Seaman wrote:
> Combining these improved predictions with prudently relaxed DUT1 constraints
> should permit extending leap second scheduling to several years.
>
> These steps can be taken today with no tedious international negotiations.
The UK's standard time b
What's the point?
Two links to refresh the discussion:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g216411573882755/
http://maia.usno.navy.mil/eopcppp/eopcppp.html
Paul Sheer wrote:
> I think what you will find is that there is no technical difference between
> moving leap seconds into
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 16:23 -0800, Steve Allen wrote:
> Which part of this is not already implemented by the code when
> it uses the "right" zoneinfo files?
>
1. let say we want a future where timezones are adjusted by 30 minutes
whenever the sun starts rising too late. Write this into the O
On Mon 2011/02/14 18:00:02 -, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>Rob frequently argues that we can't use a pure atomic timescale as the
>basis of civil time because of the quadratically increasing offset between
>UT1 and TAI. You yourself made the same argument in
On Tue 2011-02-15T02:07:59 +0200, Paul Sheer hath writ:
> In any case, whatever solution ye'all come up with should not
> merely be In Principle. It should come as a patch on some real code.
Which part of this is not already implemented by the code when
it uses the "right" zoneinfo files?
To be s
This is not just a computing issue it is a time keeping issue. People
frequently apply time zones
to times mentally, so there should be an integer number of hours between
the internationally
accepted basis for time and the civil time in any particular place.
Countries that ignore this will
suff
> Tony Finch wrote:
> > Furthermore using timezones to keep civil time in sync with
> > the sun leads to simpler software and it will work for over
> > ten thousand years.
>
> No. Breaking timezones on top of breaking UTC with the
> apparent motivation of allowing TAI to be "suppressed" is
> bad
Tony Finch wrote:
> Rob frequently argues that we can't use a pure atomic timescale as the basis
> of civil time because of the quadratically increasing offset betwee UT1 and
> TAI.
Well no, I don't think I've ever made such an argument. It is a question of
rates, not offsets. And the two cl
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Mark Calabretta wrote:
> On Fri 2011/02/11 15:42:41 -, Tony Finch wrote
> >
> >See for example
> >http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs/2011-January/002124.html
> >where Rob Seaman wrote "Civil timekeeping is cumulative. Tiny mistakes
> >posing the problem will result
On Fri 2011/02/11 16:20:22 -, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>> It's been a while... Can you remind me why we will need to continue
>> to pretend that there are 86400 SI seconds in a day, past the time
>> when there are actually 86401 (or more)?
>
>At 2.5ms/cy
On Fri 2011/02/11 15:42:41 -, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>> >Also, the "quadratic catastrophe" argument is usually used in support of
>> >UTC.
>>
>> Really? Can you provide references for that.
>
>See for example
>http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs
On Fri 2011/02/11 15:33:01 -, "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>I don't believe that's so. I might agree that people expect it to be within
>about 3 hours, but that's all.
Do people in western China work 9-to-5? If so, is it dark when they
get to work
On Feb 11, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> See for example
> http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs/2011-January/002124.html
> where Rob Seaman wrote "Civil timekeeping is cumulative. Tiny mistakes
> posing the problem will result in large and growing permanent errors."
Great to see fol
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Mark Calabretta wrote:
>
> It's been a while... Can you remind me why we will need to continue
> to pretend that there are 86400 SI seconds in a day, past the time
> when there are actually 86401 (or more)?
At 2.5ms/cy that'll be in 40,000 years. I hope you don't mind if I th
Ian Batten said:
> And people routinely live in places where solar time is several hours adrift
> from civil time --- Brest, France for example is four degrees west of
> Greenwich, yet in the summer is on UTC+2 --- so at noon civil time it is 0945
> solar time.
Parts of (mainland) Spain are eve
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Mark Calabretta wrote:
> On Thu 2011/02/10 10:43:40 -, Tony Finch wrote
> >
> >Also, the "quadratic catastrophe" argument is usually used in support of
> >UTC.
>
> Really? Can you provide references for that.
See for example
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs/2011
Mark Calabretta said:
>> The speculation on the list is that in the absence of a central
>> authority, local governments will act as their people request when it is
>> staying dark too late and parents can't get their kids to bed with the
>> sun still shining, or have to drive to work in the dar
On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> Without a plan, people will keep doing what they are doing now. Today's code
> might not be around in 10k years, but if people don't come up with a plan,
> then code written 1k or 5k years from now will still have the same problems.
I think the
On 02/10/2011 17:22, Mark Calabretta wrote:
On Fri 2011/02/11 02:14:11 +0200, Paul Sheer wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
Why is because there is a semi-infinite number of existing
lines of code, right now in use, that calculate the day from
the second and visa-versa using,
On 02/10/2011 17:14, Paul Sheer wrote:
It's been a while... Can you remind me why we will need to continue
to pretend that there are 86400 SI seconds in a day, past the time
when there are actually 86401 (or more)?
Why is because there is a semi-infinite number of existing
lines of code, right
On Fri 2011/02/11 02:14:11 +0200, Paul Sheer wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>Why is because there is a semi-infinite number of existing
>lines of code, right now in use, that calculate the day from
>the second and visa-versa using,
>
> d = t / 86400
> t = d * 86400
And t
>
> It's been a while... Can you remind me why we will need to continue
> to pretend that there are 86400 SI seconds in a day, past the time
> when there are actually 86401 (or more)?
>
Why is because there is a semi-infinite number of existing
lines of code, right now in use, that calculate t
On Thu 2011/02/10 13:56:22 -, Ian Batten wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>> Yes, it seems a likely response. The underlying assumption is
>> that people expect the Sun to be roughly overhead at noon to
>> within a tolerance of about an hour.
>
>I don't think that's quite
On Thu 2011/02/10 10:43:40 -, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>> If we're seriously expected to accept the "quadratic catastrophy"
>> argument for immediately changing UTC
>
>Also, the "quadratic catastrophe" argument is usually used in support of
>UTC.
Really?
On Thu 2011/02/10 10:30:42 -, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>> Currently the main chaotic element of timezones is concerned with
>> the start and end date of DST. The chaos is restricted to two
>> periods, sometime in autumn and spring, and it only amounts to
On Thu 2011/02/10 10:27:34 -, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>> If we're seriously expected to accept the "quadratic catastrophy"
>> argument for immediately changing UTC, would it be too much to
>> expect that its replacement actually solve the problem rather
On 10 Feb 11, at 0122, Mark Calabretta wrote:
>
> On Wed 2011/02/09 11:44:14 PDT, Warner Losh wrote
> in a message to: leapsecs@leapsecond.com
>
>> The speculation on the list is that in the absence of a central
>> authority, local governments will act as their people request when it is
>> st
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Mark Calabretta wrote:
>
> If we're seriously expected to accept the "quadratic catastrophy"
> argument for immediately changing UTC
Also, the "quadratic catastrophe" argument is usually used in support of
UTC. It is argued that a very small and slowly increasing rate differen
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Mark Calabretta wrote:
>
> Leaping timezones would be tenable if they all leapt at the same
> time. However, I think we agree that that won't happen.
They leap about all the time at arbitrary times, so I wonder why you
think that isn't tenable.
> Currently the main chaotic e
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Mark Calabretta wrote:
>
> If we're seriously expected to accept the "quadratic catastrophy"
> argument for immediately changing UTC, would it be too much to
> expect that its replacement actually solve the problem rather
> than simply delay it?
There is no solution to the pro
On Wed 2011/02/09 11:44:14 PDT, Warner Losh wrote
in a message to: leapsecs@leapsecond.com
>The speculation on the list is that in the absence of a central
>authority, local governments will act as their people request when it is
>staying dark too late and parents can't get their kids to bed wi
On Wed 2011/02/09 10:59:39 -, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>Except that timezone adjustments continue to work much further into the
>future than leap seconds.
If we're seriously expected to accept the "quadratic catastrophy"
argument for immediately changing
On Wed 2011-02-09T20:08:17 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> What would happen to a country, for examples sake, lets assume USA,
> if it decided not follow Daniels recommendation ?
For practical purposes POSIX has already answered that question.
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/epochtime.h
In message , Rob Seaman writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> What "authority" would that be, and what powers would it have ?
>
>Per SERVICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE ET DES SYSTEMES DE
>REFERENCE, we know that:
>
> "NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of June
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> What "authority" would that be, and what powers would it have ?
Per SERVICE INTERNATIONAL DE LA ROTATION TERRESTRE ET DES SYSTEMES DE
REFERENCE, we know that:
"NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of June 2011."
> I don't need to remind you,
In message <6d097a07-04ec-4ace-ad99-4c647ab22...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>In context my statement was:
>
> "By comparison, a leap second is introduced by a central
>authority [...]
What "authority" would that be, and what powers would it have ?
Remember: it's called "a recommendation
On 9 Feb 2011, at 18:44, Warner Losh wrote:
On 02/09/2011 10:48, Rob Seaman wrote:
The idea that's been put forth is that the transition would be
made all at once. Eastern Time zone would go from TI-5 to TI-4,
most likely by failing to fallback one year in the fall.
Exercise for the class:
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 09:49 -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> It is a lot easier to adjust by an hour for local time than it is to
> have a leap second every month, or more often. Thus Tony is right: the
> zoneinfo files adjusting local time via timezone shifts mandated by
> local government would e
On 02/09/2011 10:48, Rob Seaman wrote:
The idea that's been put forth is that the transition would be made all at
once. Eastern Time zone would go from TI-5 to TI-4, most likely by failing to
fallback one year in the fall.
Exercise for the class: Which is it? Will the governments act separa
Tony Finch wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
>>
>> Even if one-a-day is introduced this would be the case.
>
> Er what?! Days won't become 25 hours long until well over a hundred million
> years in the future!
In context my statement was:
"By comparison, a leap second is
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
>
> PHK's position is that hundreds of local governments (that he appears to
> consider beneath contempt) would have to act separately or severally
> during each adjustment.
Right. Just as they do at present for political reasons.
> Even if one-a-day is intro
Warner Losh wrote:
> It is a lot easier to adjust by an hour for local time than it is to have a
> leap second every month, or more often.
You assert this position. I dispute it.
"Adjust *what* by an hour"? PHK's position is that hundreds of local
governments (that he appears to consider be
On 02/09/2011 09:05, Rob Seaman wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
Warner Losh wrote:
Rob Seaman wrote:
C) As pointed out on numerous occasions in the past, these kaleidoscopic
timezones would accelerate quadratically just like leap seconds.
This problem isn't solved by this method either. True.
Tony Finch wrote:
> Warner Losh wrote:
>
>> Rob Seaman wrote:
>>
>>> C) As pointed out on numerous occasions in the past, these kaleidoscopic
>>> timezones would accelerate quadratically just like leap seconds.
>>
>> This problem isn't solved by this method either. True.
>
> Except that time
On Wed 2011-02-09T08:56:41 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
> Firstly, people don't use zoneinfo for that sort of thing. You'll end up
> with millions of confused users trying to work out why there's a 30 second
> difference between one timestamp and another.
This exchange makes it clear that
In message , Rob Seaman writes:
>Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>I reserve the right to disagree. The point is that "dumb" is what
>the "rubber timezone" folks say - and rubber timezones are an order
>of magnitude more "dumb" than either rubber seconds or
>zoneinfo-for-leapseconds.
Says who ?
Rubber
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Rob Seaman said:
>
>> But you guys continue to reject Steve Allen's zoneinfo option...which
>> represents a system layered on a relatively static timezone DB.
>
> Because it's completely dumb.
> ...
>
> Then what about the "rubber second" period of history.
I reser
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Steve Allen wrote:
>
> The point of my suggestion for using zoneinfo to propagate the leap
> seconds is that both NTP and POSIX would de facto, silently, and
> inconsequentially change to using TI rather than UTC if the name of
> the internationally approved time scale changed t
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
> >> B) Detailed expert knowledge would become necessary to answer even
> >> simple questions of comparing both clock intervals and Earth
> >> orientation questions either in a single place or across epochs and
> >> locations.
> >
> > We have that today.
>
> W
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>
> Then what about the "rubber second" period of history. From memory, the Olsen
> database only goes to a precision of 1 second.
It also only goes back to 1970 with any degree of accuracy :-)
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
HUMBER TH
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Warner Losh wrote:
> On 02/08/2011 14:39, Rob Seaman wrote:
>
> > C) As pointed out on numerous occasions in the past, these kaleidoscopic
> > timezones would accelerate quadratically just like leap seconds.
>
> This problem isn't solved by this method either. True.
Except tha
Rob Seaman said:
> > Even the olson database won't give you all the answers, but it will give
> > you many of them.
>
> But you guys continue to reject Steve Allen's zoneinfo option...which
> represents a system layered on a relatively static timezone DB.
Because it's completely dumb.
Firstly,
In message <0ea57b08-af7c-4bbe-8a56-b1376e873...@batten.eu.org>, Ian Batten wri
tes:
>> Sovereign states have some degree of control over civil time; [...]
>
>Although it's not obvious to me that in the UK, at least, they have any
>practical authority over time. The Weights and Measures Act 1985
In message <20110209025648.gb5...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>> Further evidence of this is that UN registers all internation
>> treaties its member states have entered into, in accordance with
>> the UN charters article 102, and you can see all of these treaties
>> at http://treaties.un.or
In message <20110209001914.gp1...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>On Tue 2011-02-08T17:03:31 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
>> NTP also does everything in UTC time
>
>No, NTP does not use UTC per se.
>The existing implementations make that specification misleading.
>Rather, NTP uses the internati
On 8 Feb 2011, at 17:05, Gerard Ashton wrote:
> Sovereign states have some degree of control over civil time; the remaining
> control is
> in the control of individuals, either through personal whims or voluntary
> collective
> action. The IAU, ITU, BIPM, ISO, and all the rest do not have contr
On Tue 2011-02-08T21:56:35 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> If you read the minutes of the conference, you will find that at
> best it amounts to a joint proposal on "terms of reference" for
> geographical coordinates, and that serveral questions of timekeeping
> specifically a declared "out o
On 02/08/2011 17:19, Steve Allen wrote:
On Tue 2011-02-08T17:03:31 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
NTP also does everything in UTC time
No, NTP does not use UTC per se.
The existing implementations make that specification misleading.
Rather, NTP uses the internationally approved broadcast time sc
On Tue 2011-02-08T17:03:31 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
> NTP also does everything in UTC time
No, NTP does not use UTC per se.
The existing implementations make that specification misleading.
Rather, NTP uses the internationally approved broadcast time scale.
The implementations do not know the
On 02/08/2011 16:30, Rob Seaman wrote:
Even the olson database won't give you all the answers, but it will give you
many of them.
But you guys continue to reject Steve Allen's zoneinfo option...which
represents a system layered on a relatively static timezone DB. Punting to
local governments
Warner Losh replies:
>> A) It would be taking what is currently a doubly indirect pointer and
>> removing the layer in the middle. Dereferencing (converting to UTC) would
>> no longer return a timescale stationary with respect to the synodic day.
>
> I don't see why it wouldn't. If you really
On 02/08/2011 14:39, Rob Seaman wrote:
Warner Losh wrote:
How would it be any different than today? Every few hundred years, the
government moves the time zone. Heck, they do that now every few years anyway.
Each government would be able to move it as they saw fit, or follow other
governm
In message <4d51b444.1010...@yahoo.com>, Michael Deckers writes:
>In 1884, an international conference decided:
>
> That the Conference proposes [...]
>[...] I am wondering whether
>the ITU-R people may still be aware of the importance of their
>decision: they are going to r
In message , Rob Seaman writes:
>Warner Losh wrote:
>
>> The current ITU proposal would have the effect of moving the coupling of the
>> Earth's rotation from the time that is broadcast (now called UTC) to the
>> timezones that local governments promulgate.
>
>This would be chaos for anyone needi
Warner Losh wrote:
> How would it be any different than today? Every few hundred years, the
> government moves the time zone. Heck, they do that now every few years
> anyway. Each government would be able to move it as they saw fit, or follow
> other government's leads. If the US move and C
In message <20110208202941.gg1...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>Most governments of the world are signatories to agreements which
>state that Universal Time is a subdivision of the mean solar day which
>ultimately produces the calendar.
What argrements are you thinking of ?
And is the avera
On 2011-02-08 16:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote, answering
Rob Seaman:
> Civil timekeeping is a worldwide system.
No it is not.
UTC is a "worldwide coorporation" or "worldwide coordination" if you
will.
There is no international entity which can mandate what civil time
must be in a
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> Sometimes it is civil, sometimes it is military, most of the time it is
> corporate.
We have frequently debated vocabulary here. This is why I suggested a glossary
would be a good idea.
"Civil timekeeping" has often been taken to mean something like "the common
wor
On 02/08/2011 13:55, Rob Seaman wrote:
Warner Losh wrote:
The current ITU proposal would have the effect of moving the coupling of the
Earth's rotation from the time that is broadcast (now called UTC) to the
timezones that local governments promulgate.
This would be chaos for anyone needing
Warner Losh wrote:
> The current ITU proposal would have the effect of moving the coupling of the
> Earth's rotation from the time that is broadcast (now called UTC) to the
> timezones that local governments promulgate.
This would be chaos for anyone needing to compare timestamps in different
On 02/08/2011 13:29, Steve Allen wrote:
On Tue 2011-02-08T13:14:27 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
I'd be willing to agree that "Coupling of Civil time to the earth is
required." Coupling of the successor to UTC isn't required, or at least
there's not consensus that it is required.
The broadcast
On Tue 2011-02-08T13:14:27 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
> I'd be willing to agree that "Coupling of Civil time to the earth is
> required." Coupling of the successor to UTC isn't required, or at least
> there's not consensus that it is required.
The broadcast time signals should be as uniform as
On 02/08/2011 07:55, Rob Seaman wrote:
Regarding your current question, I would personally assert:
Coupling civil timekeeping to Earth rotation is a necessary feature.
I suspect some others here might not be willing (yet) to promote this to
"consensus" :-)
Phrases like "tight coupling"
In message , Tony Fi
nch writes:
>On the other hand, the OED says the "civil" in "civil time" is to
>distinguish it from astronomical time, [...]
Or in more than a few cases: from military time.
For intance I belive the US navy operates almost exclusively on
"Zulu" aka. UTC time, at least when a
In message <8460-c20b-4016-9ef0-61405a484...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>I understand that you wish to assert that local time == civil time.
>But you also assert that computer networks worldwide must be
>synchronized. Is this latter somehow not a civil function?
Sometimes it is civil, som
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
>
> > UTC is not civil time anywhere,
>
> I understand that you wish to assert that local time == civil time.
> But you also assert that computer networks worldwide must be
> synchronized. Is this latter somehow not a civil function?
"Civil" usually relates t
Sovereign states have some degree of control over civil time; the
remaining control is
in the control of individuals, either through personal whims or
voluntary collective
action. The IAU, ITU, BIPM, ISO, and all the rest do not have control
over civil timekeeping
because the weights and measur
I said:
>> Civil timekeeping is a worldwide system.
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> No it is not.
It is remarkable how the most aggressive responses to my posts are when I
mention "system engineering" or "best practices" or otherwise suggest that this
is fundamentally an exercise in proper system
In message , Rob Seaman writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> The ITU proposal does not in fact talk about civil time at all,
>>it talks only about the timescale civil time is defined relative
>>to: UTC.
>Civil timekeeping is a worldwide system.
No it is not.
UTC is a "worldwide coorporation" or
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
>
> I'd say that history is pretty quiet on timekeeping issues in general.
> I think very highly of Dava Sobel's "Longitude", but one book does not a
> library make.
There's also "Saving the Daylight" by David Prerau. (The title has varied
a bit.)
Also Calend
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> The ITU proposal does not in fact talk about civil time at all, it talks only
> about the timescale civil time is defined relative to: UTC.
Civil timekeeping is a worldwide system. This, in fact, is one of the pillars
of "The computers are coming, the computers are c
In message , Rob Seaman writes:
>Phrases like "tight coupling" are misleading. The ITU position
>has only ever been to remove *all* coupling. On this list we have
>often discussed various ways to relax the current constraints. It
>is the ITU who have been inflexible.
You are fudging things as
Tony Finch wrote:
> the whole point of universal time is that it's the default timscale
> for civil use and only specialists should need anything else.
Seeking consensus, I said:
>> Stephen should add this to the consensus building list.
Tony said:
> Does that mean that you agree that its very
95 matches
Mail list logo
