Brian Garrett wrote:
it would depend on whether you were doing short- or long-term
planning.
Now there is a distinction I can get behind.
Once again, Shaitan is in the details :)
Two for two - you've summed up my entire perspective :-)
- Rob
_
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Seaman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Leap Second Discussion List"
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] timekeeping requirements
Brian Garrett wrote:
I fail to see how precise atomic timekeeping helps
Steve Allen wrote:
I expect both systems to be forgiving of a little bit of slop in the
implementation.
I would say the system design should be responsive to the requirement
for this degree of freedom. "Slop in the implementation" is not only
an unhelpful phrasing, it is inaccurate. The
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Leap Second Discussion List"
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] timekeeping requirements
On Mon 2008-03-03T11:47:30 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ:
Something diff
On Mon 2008-03-03T11:47:30 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ:
> Something different to discuss regarding real-world timekeeping
> requirements. - Rob
>> With an estimated two billion people worldwide dependent upon new moon
>> sightings to establish the timeline of lunar months and festivals,
My expec
I neglected to mention that this is from an SPIE program:
http://spie.org/app/program/index.cfm?fuseaction=conferencedetail&export_id=x13724&ID=x13667&redir=x13667.xml&conference_id=796763&event_id=796182&programtrack_id=796772
--
On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
Somethi
Something different to discuss regarding real-world timekeeping
requirements. - Rob
--
Al-Chaahad: new concept for young moon sighting verification
Paper 7017-49
Author(s): Mohamed Laoucet Ayari, Univ. of Colorado/Boulder
Hide Abstract
With an estimated two billion people worldwide dependent
