Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Wed 2010-08-04T10:30:40 -0700, supposing that the process was public I had writ: > The US SG7 will have a telecon on 2010-08-16. > > I expect that some of this content should appear at > https://www.ussg7.org/default.aspx I have just learned that most of the documents about the position of the US at ITU-R SG7 and WP7? are not visible without login. -- Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99855 University of CaliforniaVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On 2010-08-10 04:01, Rob Seaman wrote: On Aug 9, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Michael Deckers wrote: > The text of European Directive 2000/84/EC of 2001-01-19 is >issued by the EU in 22 languages, all with equal standing. >For the time scale determining the beginning and end of >summer time, these translations refer to: > >-- Greenwich time in 4 cases (EL, ET, HU, LV) >-- Greenwich time with GMT in parentheses in 1 case (SV) >-- Greenwich mean time in 5 cases (EN, FI, LT, MT, SK) >-- Universal time in 5 cases (ES, FR, IT, PT, RO), >-- Universal time with GMT in parentheses in 1 case (PL), >-- World time (a term for UT according to the IAU) in 2 cases > (DE, NL), >-- World time with GMT in parentheses in 1 case (CS), >-- World time with UTC in parentheses in 1 case (DA), and >-- Universal coordinated time in just one case (SL). >(Thanks to Steve Allen who first did this comparison.) > >In my opinion, this shows that the Directive does not >intend to prescribe the time scale. Doesn't this show even more clearly that to the EU's translators > there is no distinction whatsoever between "Greenwich Mean Time" and "Universal Time" in all these variations? Yes, I think so. Mean solar time (GMT), Earth rotation time (UT), and UTC are all close enough to allow for that. It is the proposed redefinition of UTC that would make this identification grossly incorrect. Michael Deckers. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On 2010-08-10 5:42 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: I am 100% convinced that the EU-court will find that it is painfully clear that the directive mandates that all countries switch to summer-time at the exact same moment, relative to the UTC timescale, simply on the basis that the directive would be pointless under any other interpretation. It could be the directive was only intended to address time to a precision of one second or so, with astronomers, communications engineers, and metrologists intentionally left to their own devices to sort things out amongst themselves when higher accuracy is required. Gerry Ashton ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message <4c61bd56.9080...@yahoo.com>, Michael Deckers writes: >This I find very hard to believe. I do not think this would be >possible in English or German law: if prior written law was >superseded it had to be revoked or changed explicitly, paragraph >by paragraph. In theory that is the same in Demark, but we made the constitutional mistake of not having a body that can enforce that, so the parliament gets to enforce that themselves, and they don't. Rule #1: Never start a land-war with Russia Rule #2: Never forget to add a constitutional court to your constitution. :-) >I can see what the European Directive says, regardless of the >mindset of European bureaucrats. The Directive is not clear >about the time scale, [...] I am 100% convinced that the EU-court will find that it is painfully clear that the directive mandates that all countries switch to summer-time at the exact same moment, relative to the UTC timescale, simply on the basis that the directive would be pointless under any other interpretation. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On 2010-08-09 22:17, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message<4c607952.2090...@yahoo.com>, Michael Deckers writes: > I am confused: there is no time scale specified in the Danish law > quoted. Do you mean that the reference in the footnote is supposed > to include the Danish text of a European Directive into Danish law, > without even explicitly quoting it? Yes. This I find very hard to believe. I do not think this would be possible in English or German law: if prior written law was superseded it had to be revoked or changed explicitly, paragraph by paragraph. I have personally helped installed TCP/IP on all computers in the European Parliament in an earlier job. I met a LOT of the translators back then. I can tell you that a detail like the proper name for a timescale does not even register on their radar. So yes, I will argue that the directive specifies that all countries in EU change summertime at the same exact instant and that this is defined on the UTC timescale, which people call all sorts of different crap for historical, and in the case of GMT, hysterical, reasons. I can absolutely guarantee you, that if your argument is that the directive does _not_ say they should switch the same instant, you will have absolutely no traction in the EU-mindset, which is hell-bent on unifying the countries to a degree you can not even begin to fathom. I can see what the European Directive says, regardless of the mindset of European bureaucrats. The Directive is not clear about the time scale, and not just because of your description I think that if these bureaucrats really had intended to prescribe UTC then they would have succeeded in doing so. They didn't. As it stands, the Directive says the time of switches to and from summer time is 01 o'clock GMT or UT or WT or UTC, or whatever the time base is. As you have remarked above, the translation of the Directive is sloppy about that time scale (which is not too bad because a European Directive is not by itself law anywhere in the world). For instance, in German, the EU Directive says "world time", but the base for legal time in Germany is UTC, and in Austria it is GMT. Both countries have their summer time law adjusted to the Directive, but without incorporating or referencing the text of the Directive, and without changing their base for legal time. Michael Deckers. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Aug 9, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Michael Deckers wrote: > The text of European Directive 2000/84/EC of 2001-01-19 is > issued by the EU in 22 languages, all with equal standing. > For the time scale determining the beginning and end of > summer time, these translations refer to: > > -- Greenwich time in 4 cases (EL, ET, HU, LV) > -- Greenwich time with GMT in parentheses in 1 case (SV) > -- Greenwich mean time in 5 cases (EN, FI, LT, MT, SK) > -- Universal time in 5 cases (ES, FR, IT, PT, RO), > -- Universal time with GMT in parentheses in 1 case (PL), > -- World time (a term for UT according to the IAU) in 2 cases > (DE, NL), > -- World time with GMT in parentheses in 1 case (CS), > -- World time with UTC in parentheses in 1 case (DA), and > -- Universal coordinated time in just one case (SL). > (Thanks to Steve Allen who first did this comparison.) > > In my opinion, this shows that the Directive does not > intend to prescribe the time scale. Doesn't this show even more clearly that to the EU's translators there is no distinction whatsoever between "Greenwich Mean Time" and "Universal Time" in all these variations? The ITU's shell game depends on UTC being legally separable from GMT. This is yet another example of how unlikely it is that such is possible. Rob Seaman NOAO ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message <4c607952.2090...@yahoo.com>, Michael Deckers writes:
>> They ratified the EU directive in a Danish law, most recently
>> (http://retsinformation.w0.dk/print.aspx?id=22064) which defines
>> that DST ("sommertid") starts 02:00 (local time) (etc).
>
>I am confused: there is no time scale specified in the Danish law
>quoted. Do you mean that the reference in the footnote is supposed
>to include the Danish text of a European Directive into Danish law,
>without even explicitly quoting it?
Yes.
>> So now we have:
>>
>> A) The law about "determination of the time" says solar time at -15long.
>>
>> B) EU directive says DST starts at 01:00Z
>
>No. The text of European Directive 2000/84/EC of 2001-01-19 is
>issued by the EU in 22 languages, all with equal standing.
>For the time scale determining the beginning and end of
>summer time, these translations refer to:
>[...]
>-- World time with UTC in parentheses in 1 case (DA), and
And since this one is controlling for Denmark, Denmark is now
on UTC+1h/2h timescale.
>In my opinion, this shows that the Directive does not
>intend to prescribe the time scale. Or do you
>think that it was the idea that the Danes and Slovenes
>should follow UTC while the British follow GMT? Then certainly
>the Welsh, Gaelic, Catalan, Basque,.. people would want to have
>their own versions!
I have personally helped installed TCP/IP on all computers in the
European Parliament in an earlier job. I met a LOT of the translators
back then. I can tell you that a detail like the proper name for
a timescale does not even register on their radar.
So yes, I will argue that the directive specifies that all countries
in EU change summertime at the same exact instant and that this
is defined on the UTC timescale, which people call all sorts of
different crap for historical, and in the case of GMT, hysterical,
reasons.
I can absolutely guarantee you, that if your argument is that
the directive does _not_ say they should switch the same instant,
you will have absolutely no traction in the EU-mindset, which
is hell-bent on unifying the countries to a degree you can not
even begin to fathom.
Poul-Henning
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On 2010-08-09 11:04, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message<20100809104622.gc32...@davros.org>, "Clive D.W. Feather" writes:
> . You said that the EU directive redefines the
> basis of legal time in Denmark (this was in the context of UT v UTC).
It does.
They ratified the EU directive in a Danish law, most recently
(http://retsinformation.w0.dk/print.aspx?id=22064) which defines
that DST ("sommertid") starts 02:00 (local time) (etc).
I am confused: there is no time scale specified in the Danish law
quoted. Do you mean that the reference in the footnote is supposed
to include the Danish text of a European Directive into Danish law,
without even explicitly quoting it?
So now we have:
A) The law about "determination of the time" says solar time at -15long.
B) EU directive says DST starts at 01:00Z
No. The text of European Directive 2000/84/EC of 2001-01-19 is
issued by the EU in 22 languages, all with equal standing.
For the time scale determining the beginning and end of
summer time, these translations refer to:
-- Greenwich time in 4 cases (EL, ET, HU, LV)
-- Greenwich time with GMT in parentheses in 1 case (SV)
-- Greenwich mean time in 5 cases (EN, FI, LT, MT, SK)
-- Universal time in 5 cases (ES, FR, IT, PT, RO),
-- Universal time with GMT in parentheses in 1 case (PL),
-- World time (a term for UT according to the IAU) in 2 cases
(DE, NL),
-- World time with GMT in parentheses in 1 case (CS),
-- World time with UTC in parentheses in 1 case (DA), and
-- Universal coordinated time in just one case (SL).
(Thanks to Steve Allen who first did this comparison.)
In my opinion, this shows that the Directive does not
intend to prescribe the time scale. Or do you
think that it was the idea that the Danes and Slovenes
should follow UTC while the British follow GMT? Then certainly
the Welsh, Gaelic, Catalan, Basque,.. people would want to have
their own versions!
Michael Deckers.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
Steve Allen wrote: >The way that zoneinfo is structured gives >the impression that POSIX systems (and anything which handles local >civil time in a roughly equivalent way) could handle such a name change, Zoneinfo doesn't model the differences between flavours of UT, or indeed any sub-second effects. So yes, it can handle the name change, presuming that we treat TI as a flavour of UT for this purpose. (While it's certainly not a flavour of UT for many other purposes, not least the plain definition of UT.) -zefram ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
Steve Allen wrote: >Listen to the BBC. Many of the readers will announce that it's >"X o'clock GMT" when that means "X o'clock British Summer Time". BBC World Service announces "X o'clock Greenwich Mean Time" and really means GMT. (The immediately preceding pips are synchronised to UTC, not GMT, but the voice announcement doesn't have sub-second precision.) BBC services aimed at the UK tend to say "X o'clock", not stating a timezone, and mean UK civil time. Do you have a specific citation for an instance where they got it wrong? Something that *does* say "GMT" and mean "UK civil time" is Microsoft's timezone software. The listing "GMT London, Dublin" refers to UK/Irish civil time (UT+0h/UT+1h). "GMT Casablanca" refers to Morocco civil time, which from 1979 to 2007 conveniently happened to be UT+0h all year round: in the late 1990s I used this as the only way to get a Windows desktop machine to stick to UT. From 2008 Morocco has switched back to a UT+0h/UT+1h arrangement, but of course with different transition dates from the UK. Zoneinfo suggests that Moroccans have never actually called their UT+0h offset "GMT". -zefram ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message <20100809144646.ga6...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes: >On Mon 2010-08-09T12:26:04 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ: >> The danish translation now says UTC (It used to say GMT) > >Has this resulted in a national government laboratory that is >willing to run an NTP server for use by the people of Denmark? The lab has always been willing, it was the agency that didn't want to fund it, officially because they feared it would violate danish law. Unofficially because there were som pet-projects they'd rather fund. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Mon 2010-08-09T12:26:04 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ: > The danish translation now says UTC (It used to say GMT) Has this resulted in a national government laboratory that is willing to run an NTP server for use by the people of Denmark? -- Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99855 University of CaliforniaVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message , Tony Fi nch writes: >On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> EU directive says DST starts at 01:00Z > >But the EU directive is not consistent about whether Z is UTC or UT so it >cannot be interpreted to require UTC. The danish translation now says UTC (It used to say GMT) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > EU directive says DST starts at 01:00Z But the EU directive is not consistent about whether Z is UTC or UT so it cannot be interpreted to require UTC. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT: SOUTHERLY OR SOUTHWESTERLY 4 OR 5, INCREASING 5 OR 6, OCCASIONALLY 7 LATER. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. FAIR THEN OCCASIONAL RAIN. GOOD, BECOMING MODERATE, OCCASIONALLY POOR. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message <20100809104622.gc32...@davros.org>, "Clive D.W. Feather" writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>> and we have a constitution for Denmark that has
>> relevant wording in it.
>
>Pardon me for being confused, [...]
In Denmark the parliament reigns supreme, (Note to constitutional
writers: This is a _really_ bad idea for a one-chamber setup!)
and if they say that the law meant to say "UTC+1h" that's what
the law means, even if they do not put it directly in a law.
The courts will defer such questions to the legislature unless there
are other controlling documents (human rights, EU treaties etc).
>That was a separate point. You said that the EU directive redefines the
>basis of legal time in Denmark (this was in the context of UT v UTC).
It does.
They ratified the EU directive in a Danish law, most recently
(http://retsinformation.w0.dk/print.aspx?id=22064) which defines
that DST ("sommertid") starts 02:00 (local time) (etc).
So now we have:
A) The law about "determination of the time" says solar time at -15long.
B) EU directive says DST starts at 01:00Z
C) directive ratifying law says that is 02:00 local time.
Ta-dah!
Thanks to the wonder of sloppy legislating and a lack of a constitutioal
court in Denmark, Denmark is now aligned to UTC while still having
a valid, in force, law on the books that says something different.
But it is the directive that links to UTC, not the law: You only find
the link if you read the underlying EU directive.
Poul-Henning
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
Poul-Henning Kamp said: >> I am not a Danish lawyer, but such a "current view" would be unlikely to >> sway the UK courts in the presence of clear legislative wording to the >> contrary. > It would not be a UK court, but a Danish court, which is not a > common law court, I realize that. My point was simply that, for the law systems I know about, an argument along the lines of "the legislation wasn't supposed to say that" wouldn't get very far. I'm surprised that Denmark is different. > and we have a constitution for Denmark that has > relevant wording in it. Pardon me for being confused, but I thought you were saying that Danish law (or constitution, I'm unclear which) says that "time" means "mean solar time". Are you saying that the constitution allows that wording to be ignored because "current view" is that UTC is what was meant? >> [...] >> The EU directive does no such thing. That was a separate point. You said that the EU directive redefines the basis of legal time in Denmark (this was in the context of UT v UTC). There is no wording in the Directive saying that, and I continue to take the position that therefore it does no such thing. > But even allowing for that, your argument is still bunk. I completely disagree. > No court, UK or DK, would take the case until you show you have > standing to bring the suit. That I do agree with. But it's irrelevant to whether my argument is right or wrong. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: cl...@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646 ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message , Tony F inch writes: >On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> For starters, the actual change happend in 1958 when the clock >> running the free-of-charge "Fr?kken Klokken" telephone service >> was adjusted to UTC. > >Er, no. 1958 was when TAI started. The predecessor of UTC started in 1961. Yes, and that is why in 1958 the Telelaboratoriet started "violating" the danish law from 18xx. Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On 5 Aug 2010 at 23:22, M. Warner Losh wrote: > Most people live at a location where their daily time doesn't match > solar time, so a few seconds this way or that isn't likely to > bother them much. If the ITU puts its technical stamp of approval > on a chance, I'm doubtful much can be done... Get the right-wing commentators (Limbaugh, Beck, etc.) going on about how some unelected bureaucrats are redefining time away from longstanding cultural tradition started by God Himself; if you can somehow tie this in to socialism or the gay agenda that would be great! -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > For starters, the actual change happend in 1958 when the clock > running the free-of-charge "Fr?kken Klokken" telephone service > was adjusted to UTC. Er, no. 1958 was when TAI started. The predecessor of UTC started in 1961. (Which is not to disagree with your argument that in practice the law means UTC when it says GMT.) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ SHANNON ROCKALL MALIN HEBRIDES: CYCLONIC IN MALIN AT FIRST, OTHERWISE NORTHERLY OR NORTHWESTERLY 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SHOWERS THEN FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Aug 6, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , Rob Seaman writes: > >> Astronomers on this list have demonstrated profligate willingness to >> entertain diverse options. > > As has the unworthy (in your opinion) computer geeks. Um - one can be an astronomer and a computer geek. You want geeks? We got geeks of cosmic proportions. It is the timelords who appear to find this conversation unworthy. This isn't a two-sided conversation, but rather three-sided (at least). > What happend to the "you tell us leap seconds 10 years in advance" proposal > for instance ? Still on the table, waiting for the timelords to sit down. It's remarkable how unproductive a discussion becomes when one party spends a decade attempting repeatedly to cram through the same insipid proposal. Rob ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Fri 2010-08-06T15:24:40 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ: > What happend to the "you tell us leap seconds 10 years in advance" > proposal for instance ? Underneath that is a technical question. There have been hints that the folks at IERS might be able to that, but the question has not been asked and therefore not answered. I recognize the point of simplifying ITU-R business by restricting the current questions to "technical" ones, but I wonder if that is not a short-sighted strategy. If there is a significant chance that the Radiocommunication Assembly might not approve of the draft TF.460 in its current form and request that it be modified to change the name of the broadcast time scale from UTC to TI, then that raises other technical questions which will want to be answered. In particular, what sorts of adverse side effects are there for operational systems to separate the notion of UTC from the underlying time scale. The way that zoneinfo is structured gives the impression that POSIX systems (and anything which handles local civil time in a roughly equivalent way) could handle such a name change, but that is another technical question which needs to be asked. So if the RA says no to the proposal in its current form then it seems as if the issue will be sent right back down to WP7A to answer the unasked questions. -- Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99855 University of CaliforniaVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message , Rob Seaman writes: >On Aug 6, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >Astronomers on this list have demonstrated profligate willingness >to entertain diverse options. As has the unworthy (in your opinion) computer geeks. What happend to the "you tell us leap seconds 10 years in advance" proposal for instance ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Aug 6, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <2e851e8c-2b4d-4898-8da5-aa328ec6b...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes: > >> Our power may not be huge - but our cause is just. > > I don't think anybody doubt that, but so is the case of all the people who > have to get computerized controls, networks and other technology to work. This isn't a zero-sum game and you are asserting a false dichotomy. Few have more dependence on "computerized controls, networks and other technology" than astronomers. Astronomers are disproportionately eager users of many flavors of both atomic and solar timescales. It is technically insipid to attempt to pretend that Universal Time is not mean solar time. By all means pursue timekeeping reform based on requirements derived from the real world. Astronomers on this list have demonstrated profligate willingness to entertain diverse options. Rob ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message <20100806074045.gb66...@davros.org>, "Clive D.W. Feather" writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp said: >I am not a Danish lawyer, but such a "current view" would be unlikely to >sway the UK courts in the presence of clear legislative wording to the >contrary. >[...] >The EU directive does no such thing. Clive, Your concern is appreciated, even if it is totally of the rails. It would not be a UK court, but a Danish court, which is not a common law court, and we have a constitution for Denmark that has relevant wording in it. One would suppose that to have relevance for your very bombastic argument, but you certainly don't sound like it. But even allowing for that, your argument is still bunk. No court, UK or DK, would take the case until you show you have standing to bring the suit. For starters, the actual change happend in 1958 when the clock running the free-of-charge "Frøkken Klokken" telephone service was adjusted to UTC. Unless you lived in 1958, you have a very tough row to hoe to convince anybody you can possibly have standing. Next problem: The "Tele-laboratoriet" reacted to a duly ratified official UN recommendation, with approval from the minister, and our parliament has not reacted adversely in 50 years. This gives rise to a very broad assumption of both legitimacy and executive reasonableness. The statute of limitations would at best be 5 or 10 years, unless you can bring evidence that people died as a result, in which case it is a criminal matter and you don't have standing anyway but have to hand it over to the public prosecutor. You are not even able to reach the EU directive on summer time with that. Finally you have to lift the burden of proof, to show that you, personally, has suffered a distinct, attributable harm, which the court can right. Good luck with that. Poul-Henning PS: just checked, they seem to have fixed the translation, now it uses UTC as reference: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0084:DA:HTML -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
ashtongj said: > McCarthy and Seidelmann, on page 17 of _TIME: From Earth Rotation to > Atomic Physics_ (2009) state "GMT is still used as the official time > scale of the United Kingdom and in some communication systems as UTC." Interpretation Act 1978, s.9: [References to time of day.] Subject to section 3 of the Summer Time Act 1972 (construction of references to points of time during the period of summer time), whenever an expression of time occurs in an Act, the time referred to shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be held to be Greenwich mean time. It also appears that time is not a reserved matter, so: Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, s.23: (1) An expression of time that occurs in an Act of the Scottish Parliament or a Scottish instrument is to be read as a reference to Greenwich mean time. (2) Subsection (1) is subject to section 3 of the Summer Time Act 1972 (c.6)(construction of references to points of time during the period of summer time). Finally: Summer Time Act 1972. I shall quote the entire Act as currently in force except for s.6, which is the admin part. 1. [Advance of time during period of summer time.] (1) The time for general purposes in Great Britain shall, during the period of summer time, be one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time. (2) The period of summer time for the purposes of this Act is the period beginning at one o'clock, Greenwich mean time, in the morning of the last Sunday in March and ending at one o'clock, Greenwich mean time, in the morning of the last Sunday in October. 3. [Interpretation of references.] (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, wherever any reference to a point of time occurs in any enactment, Order in Council, order, regulation, rule, byelaw, deed, notice or other document whatsoever, the time referred to shall, during the period of summer time, be taken to be the time as fixed for general purposes by this Act. (2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the use of Greenwich mean time for purposes of astronomy, meteorology, or navigation, or affect the construction of any document mentioning or referring to a point of time in connection with any of those purposes. 4. [Northern Ireland.] (1) This Act shall apply to Northern Ireland in like manner as it applies to Great Britain. 5. [Channel Islands and Isle of Man.] (1) Unless other provision is made by a law of the States of Jersey or of Guernsey or by an Act of Tynwald, as the case may be, this Act shall, subject to subsection (2) below, apply to the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Isle of Man in like manner as it applies to Great Britain. (2) An Order in Council made under section 2 above may make different provision with respect to Great Britain and with respect to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man or any of them. (Interesting observation: s.5(2) has not been repealed even though it only relates to powers in s.2, which *has* been repealed.) > I have also read, although I do not recall exactly where, that the UK > Parliament debated changing the law to specify that the basis of time > was UTC, but in the end no action was taken. That's correct, though I can't easily provide a cite. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: cl...@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646 ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
Poul-Henning Kamp said: What countries do you think are using UT1 (or another time scale with an astronomical basis) for their legal time, and which would therefore drift away from those using UTC? >>> Notably, Denmark. > > Actually, that is certainly not the case, no matter how you look > at it. > > Although the "law of recogning time" from late 18xx does that, the > current view is that the law was probably formulated that way in > order to make the result of the longitude conference understandable > by the relevant lay people (navigators), rather than as an actual > scientific definition. > > That is somewhat creative reading, in order to make the legal > argument fall in place: I am not a Danish lawyer, but such a "current view" would be unlikely to sway the UK courts in the presence of clear legislative wording to the contrary. > The EU directive on summertime superseedes the old law, thereby > defining legal time in Denmark as based on (wait for it...) GMT! The EU directive does no such thing. The EU directive sets the time of transition between winter and summer time. It is an instruction to the Member States to change their legislation with a certain effect - you can see the effect in the UK in my previous email, where the Summer Time Act s.1(2) was amended to make UK law conform to the Directive. The Directive does *NOT* specify the legal time base in any EU country, merely the offset. It doesn't even specify the offsets from GMT (or UTC) to be used in each country. Read it: Article 1 For the purposes of this Directive 'summer-time period' shall mean the period of the year during which clocks are put forward by 60 minutes compared with the rest of the year. Article 2 From 2002 onwards, the summer-time period shall begin, in every Member State, at 1.00 a.m., Greenwich Mean Time, on the last Sunday in March. Article 3 From 2002 onwards, the summer-time period shall end, in every Member State, at 1.00 a.m., Greenwich Mean Time, on the last Sunday in October. [4 and 5 are bumf] Article 6 This Directive shall not apply to the overseas territories of the Member States. Article 7 Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 2001 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. Article 8 This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Article 9 This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Forcing all Member States to use GMT+N or UTC+N or TAI+N is clearly within the powers of the European Commission, but they've made no attempt to do so up to now. > The GMT is clearly an interpreter thing, trying to be helpful, > rather than distiction of definition, as other translations use > UTC, "Weltzeit" and similar terms of art. Indeed, they do. A strict reading of this wording would mean that, even if the UK moved to UTC as its basis for timekeeping, the transition would *still* be defined by GMT, not UTC. But the variation in wording indicates that the Commission did not intend to alter the basis of timekeeping in any Member State and, indeed, viewed the difference as irrelevant to the purpose of this Directive. > So no, clocks in Denmark would be firmly in lockstep with clocks > in the rest of the EU. Except for the difference between those clocks in states following GMT and those in states following UTC. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: cl...@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646 ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message <2e851e8c-2b4d-4898-8da5-aa328ec6b...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes: >Our power may not be huge - but our cause is just. I don't think anybody doubt that, but so is the case of all the people who have to get computerized controls, networks and other technology to work. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Aug 5, 2010, at 10:22 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote: > Chances are that any divergence between the rotation of the earth and UTC is > unlikely to be noticed by enough people to stop this from happening, if the > ITU says this "technical adjustment" needs to be made. The divergence is a secular effect. A small effect - perhaps the ITU can fool some of the people some of the time. But a cumulative effect - meaning they can't fool all of the people all of the time. > The Astronomers are affected the most, but there's not a lot of them and > their power isn't huge. Our power may not be huge - but our cause is just. Rob -- “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg.” - Abraham Lincoln___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message: <1a42833a2c1188ff827608c698c484f3.squir...@mx.pipe.nl> "Nero Imhard" writes: : Rob Seaman wrote: : : > The simplest and most direct (and most likely to succeed) way to : > achieve a goal of removing leap seconds from civil timekeeping would : > be to advocate GPS timekeeping as the alternative. : : I don't see how it could be achieved. It's a matter of control. The : definition of UTC is something the ITU supposedly has influence over, but : the definition of civil (or legal) time in country X certainly isn't. : : I assume that they have concluded that fulfilling the requirement to use : civil would be easier without leap seconds. So, instead of asking every : government on the planet to use another time scale for civil time, it is : much easier for ITU to excercise their control over the time scale : currently used by the vast majority of countries and just fix it from : their own end. : : My question is: does this UN agency, acting in the interest of the : telecommunications world only, actually have the authority to change the : definition of UTC (which is in use for other purposes as well), and, if : yes, does anyone see how such a horror could be fixed? : : I say "horror" because fundamentally changing a definition (as is proposed : for UTC) feels like some kind of betrayal, a serious scientific sin, a : demonstration of unreliability, and contempt for anyone who ever has based : any decisions on the original definition. Obviously "being a reliable and : dependable shepherd of UTC" isn't in the interest of the current shepherd, : so something needs to change here. But what exactly and how? Chances are that any divergence between the rotation of the earth and UTC is unlikely to be noticed by enough people to stop this from happening, if the ITU says this "technical adjustment" needs to be made. The Astronomers are affected the most, but there's not a lot of them and their power isn't huge. Few navigate by the stars anymore, now that GPS is there. Most people live at a location where their daily time doesn't match solar time, so a few seconds this way or that isn't likely to bother them much. If the ITU puts its technical stamp of approval on a chance, I'm doubtful much can be done... Warner ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
Rob Seaman wrote: > The simplest and most direct (and most likely to succeed) way to > achieve a goal of removing leap seconds from civil timekeeping would > be to advocate GPS timekeeping as the alternative. I don't see how it could be achieved. It's a matter of control. The definition of UTC is something the ITU supposedly has influence over, but the definition of civil (or legal) time in country X certainly isn't. I assume that they have concluded that fulfilling the requirement to use civil would be easier without leap seconds. So, instead of asking every government on the planet to use another time scale for civil time, it is much easier for ITU to excercise their control over the time scale currently used by the vast majority of countries and just fix it from their own end. My question is: does this UN agency, acting in the interest of the telecommunications world only, actually have the authority to change the definition of UTC (which is in use for other purposes as well), and, if yes, does anyone see how such a horror could be fixed? I say "horror" because fundamentally changing a definition (as is proposed for UTC) feels like some kind of betrayal, a serious scientific sin, a demonstration of unreliability, and contempt for anyone who ever has based any decisions on the original definition. Obviously "being a reliable and dependable shepherd of UTC" isn't in the interest of the current shepherd, so something needs to change here. But what exactly and how? N ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Aug 5, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > Although the law defines GMT as a mean solar time scale, in practice all > official sources use UTC - the BBC, the NPL's broadcast time reference MSF, > the NTP servers at the LINX sponsored by the DTI, etc. I suppose we could lobby to redefine Greenwich Mean Time as the apparent solar time in Gibraltar. About as logical as suggesting that Coordinated Universal Time should be something other than a representation of universal time. Rob ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Steve Allen wrote: > On Thu 2010-08-05T14:55:25 -0600, M. Warner Losh hath writ: > > in the UK there's not a clear distinction between GMT and UTC and > > often (but not always?) the terms are used interchangeably. > > Listen to the BBC. Many of the readers will announce that it's > "X o'clock GMT" when that means "X o'clock British Summer Time". No. Times on the World Service are always announced in GMT. They aren't affected by summer time since they aren't providing a domestic radio service. The BBC's national radio stations almost never mention the name of the time zone. Although the law defines GMT as a mean solar time scale, in practice all official sources use UTC - the BBC, the NPL's broadcast time reference MSF, the NTP servers at the LINX sponsored by the DTI, etc. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT: WEST 4 OR 5, BACKING SOUTH 3 OR 4 LATER. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. SHOWERS. GOOD. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message , "Jonathan E. Hardis" writes: >On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:45:24 -0700 Steve Allen > wrote: >>> What countries do you think are using UT1 (or another time scale with an >>> astronomical basis) for their legal time, and which would therefore >>> drift away from those using UTC? >> >> Notably, Denmark. Actually, that is certainly not the case, no matter how you look at it. Although the "law of recogning time" from late 18xx does that, the current view is that the law was probably formulated that way in order to make the result of the longitude conference understandable by the relevant lay people (navigators), rather than as an actual scientific definition. That is somewhat creative reading, in order to make the legal argument fall in place: The EU directive on summertime superseedes the old law, thereby defining legal time in Denmark as based on (wait for it...) GMT! The GMT is clearly an interpreter thing, trying to be helpful, rather than distiction of definition, as other translations use UTC, "Weltzeit" and similar terms of art. So no, clocks in Denmark would be firmly in lockstep with clocks in the rest of the EU. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:45:24 -0700 Steve Allen wrote: What countries do you think are using UT1 (or another time scale with an astronomical basis) for their legal time, and which would therefore drift away from those using UTC? Notably, Denmark. Well, then I would expect that the U.S. Congress would defer to the EU on this matter. - Jonathan ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:45:24 -0700 Steve Allen wrote: On Thu 2010-08-05T16:29:17 -0400, ashtongj hath writ: On 2010-08-05 3:17 PM, Jonathan E. Hardis wrote: The 15th Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures (the formal body formed by the Treaty of the Meter) "strongly endorsed" the usage of UTC as the basis of civil time among the signatory nations and throughout the world. The CGPM did so with the explicit recognition that UTC (with leap seconds) provides mean solar time (in accord with the 1884 International Meridian Conference agreement about time). http://www1.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=15&RES=5 In the resolution, I don't see the reference to the 1884 International Meridian Conference, but nonetheless, the CGPM has the prerogative to change its mind. - Jonathan ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Thu 2010-08-05T14:55:25 -0600, M. Warner Losh hath writ: > in the UK there's not a clear distinction between GMT and UTC and > often (but not always?) the terms are used interchangeably. Listen to the BBC. Many of the readers will announce that it's "X o'clock GMT" when that means "X o'clock British Summer Time". > Evidently, the 0 meridian (as defined by > GPS) don't fall precisely where it used to, so the observatory that > made the measurements is a little off. The RGO was moved from Greenwich to Herstmonceux in 1957, and that included the operational meridian circle. From that date there has been no device capable of authoritatively defining the meaning of GMT as specified by the IMC. In the interim there were many changes, the first ones described in the BIH Annual Report for 1968 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/BIHAR1968.JPG This table refers to 3 changes of conventions which caused global discontinuities in latitude, longitude, and/or UT1. (The longitudes changed again on 1984-01-01 with the switch to FK5 that reset the prime meridian to match the satellite Doppler ranging which was already being performed at the time of this publication, but that switch demanded continuity of UT1, as did the subsequent changes of 1997-02-27 and 2003-01-01.) Nobody can say what GMT means in a manner that requires anyone else to agree. -- Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99855 University of CaliforniaVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:54:49 -0400 ashtongj wrote: If the leap second is dropped, the change will become perceptible to ordinary voters, especially when there are several seconds difference in the seconds field of legal time in the U.S. compared to some other countries. The 15th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (the formal body formed by the Treaty of the Meter) “strongly endorsed” the usage of UTC as the basis of civil time among the signatory nations and throughout the world. What countries do you think are using UT1 (or another time scale with an astronomical basis) for their legal time, and which would therefore drift away from those using UTC? - Jonathan ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Aug 5, 2010, at 1:55 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote: ashtongj writes: McCarthy and Seidelmann, on page 17 of _TIME: From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics_ (2009) state "GMT is still used as the official time scale of the United Kingdom and in some communication systems as UTC." In one of these mailing lists, there was a debate about NASA using the term "GMT" when they really meant "UTC". There were many different references cited during that debate. One of them indicated that even in the UK there's not a clear distinction between GMT and UTC and often (but not always?) the terms are used interchangeably. UTC being viewed as just another way to realize GMT with some small, trivial error for the real pendants. Precisely. (Or rather, approximately.) It will prove impossible to untangle the historical identification of UTC as - well - a flavor of actual Universal Time, which is to say a way of approximating GMT. The simplest and most direct (and most likely to succeed) way to achieve a goal of removing leap seconds from civil timekeeping would be to advocate GPS timekeeping as the alternative. Civilians love their GPS units. Stop viewing this issue as a way to cleverly (that is to say, naively) sneak through a putatively invisible change to every clock on the planet. Rather, view it as a way to make timekeeping sexy and visible and of significant economic interest. There is already a healthy GPS industry in place that would be delighted to fill orders for new clocks. Rob Seaman National Optical Astronomy Observatory ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message: <4c5b1f1d.4060...@comcast.net> ashtongj writes: : (I'm sorry for any duplication, I meant to send this to the group.) : : McCarthy and Seidelmann, on page 17 of _TIME: From Earth Rotation to : Atomic Physics_ (2009) state "GMT is still used as the official time : scale of the United Kingdom and in some communication systems as UTC." In one of these mailing lists, there was a debate about NASA using the term "GMT" when they really meant "UTC". There were many different references cited during that debate. One of them indicated that even in the UK there's not a clear distinction between GMT and UTC and often (but not always?) the terms are used interchangeably. UTC being viewed as just another way to realize GMT with some small, trivial error for the real pendants. Evidently, the 0 meridian (as defined by GPS) don't fall precisely where it used to, so the observatory that made the measurements is a little off. But my memory is hazy on this, and a quick search of my email archive is unenlightening. : I have also read, although I do not recall exactly where, that the UK : Parliament debated changing the law to specify that the basis of time : was UTC, but in the end no action was taken. That I don't know about. Warner : On 2010-08-05 3:17 PM, Jonathan E. Hardis wrote: : > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:54:49 -0400 : > ashtongj wrote: : >> If the leap second is dropped, the change will become perceptible to : >> ordinary voters, especially when there are several seconds difference : >> in the seconds field of legal time in the U.S. compared to some other : >> countries. : > : > The 15th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (the formal body : > formed by the Treaty of the Meter) “strongly endorsed” the usage of : > UTC : > as the basis of civil time among the signatory nations and throughout : > the world. : > : > What countries do you think are using UT1 (or another time scale with : > an : > astronomical basis) for their legal time, and which would therefore : > drift away from those using UTC? : > : > - Jonathan : > : ___ : LEAPSECS mailing list : LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com : http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Thu 2010-08-05T16:29:17 -0400, ashtongj hath writ: > On 2010-08-05 3:17 PM, Jonathan E. Hardis wrote: > >The 15th Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures (the formal body > >formed by the Treaty of the Meter) "strongly endorsed" the usage of UTC > >as the basis of civil time among the signatory nations and throughout > >the world. The CGPM did so with the explicit recognition that UTC (with leap seconds) provides mean solar time (in accord with the 1884 International Meridian Conference agreement about time). http://www1.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=15&RES=5 > >What countries do you think are using UT1 (or another time scale with an > >astronomical basis) for their legal time, and which would therefore > >drift away from those using UTC? Notably, Denmark. See here for other such complexities: http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/epochtime.html I'd be happy to learn of other such issues. -- Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99855 University of CaliforniaVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
(I'm sorry for any duplication, I meant to send this to the group.) McCarthy and Seidelmann, on page 17 of _TIME: From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics_ (2009) state "GMT is still used as the official time scale of the United Kingdom and in some communication systems as UTC." I have also read, although I do not recall exactly where, that the UK Parliament debated changing the law to specify that the basis of time was UTC, but in the end no action was taken. On 2010-08-05 3:17 PM, Jonathan E. Hardis wrote: On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:54:49 -0400 ashtongj wrote: If the leap second is dropped, the change will become perceptible to ordinary voters, especially when there are several seconds difference in the seconds field of legal time in the U.S. compared to some other countries. The 15th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (the formal body formed by the Treaty of the Meter) “strongly endorsed” the usage of UTC as the basis of civil time among the signatory nations and throughout the world. What countries do you think are using UT1 (or another time scale with an astronomical basis) for their legal time, and which would therefore drift away from those using UTC? - Jonathan ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
In message: <4c5afae9.4080...@comcast.net> ashtongj writes: : I observe that the [U.S.] International Telecommunications Advisory : Committee is part of the U.S. State department. The part of that : committee discussed below is known in full as International : Telecommunications Advisory Committee, Radiocommunications sector, : Study Group 7: Science services, Working Party 7A (ITAC-R Study Group : 7 WP 7A) : : (Source: http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/adcom/itac/index.htm and : https://www.ussg7.org/default.aspx) : : I would speculate that the members of Congress who authorized the : change change in basis of U.S. time from mean solar time to UTC : presumed that it was a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo that could not : perceived by ordinary voters. If the leap second is dropped, the : change will become perceptible to ordinary voters, especially when : there are several seconds difference in the seconds field of legal : time in the U.S. compared to some other countries. When enough : information about the position of the U.S. WP 7A becomes available, it : might be appropriate to bring to the attention of members of Congress : that an obscure portion of a State Department committee is trying to : change the meaning of the language in legislation in a way that will : be perceptible to voters. It will take a decade or two before the difference between the US-without-leap-seconds-UTC and other countries mean-solar-time delta to accumulate enough for people to complain enough that people start to notice, and another decade after that to fix (the fix may be for those other countries to conform to the UTC rather than mean-solar-time standard). That's longer than the average term of congress-critters, and if the other countries fix it, not even of interest to the real old-timers in congress... I mean, the issue of abolishing leap seconds has been proposed and seriously talked about now for about at least a decade, and any implementation of it is at least 5-10 years away. Maybe I'm just too cynical... Warner : Gerry Ashton : : On 2010-08-04 1:30 PM, Steve Allen wrote: : > According to the ITU-R the next meeting of SG7 will happen in Geneva : > on : > 2010-10-04 and 2010-10-12. : > : > According to the US ITAC-R the issue of leap seconds in UTC : > will be considered by ITU-R SG7. : > : > The summary from V. Timofeev explains that last year ITU-R WP7A : > decided that they could not reach consensus and that they had : > addressed all the technical issues, so they advanced the proposed : > revision of Rec 460 to SG7. In the absence of approval from WP7A, SG7 : > could not approve, nor send it back to WP7A, so the draft has waited. : > : > Timofeev has released a questionnaire to the delegations along with : > instructions that SG7 should only consider technical issues. : > Technical issues would mean the draft is to return to WP7A. : > Other-then-technical issues are to be referred to the : > Radiocommunication Assembly. : > : > The 4 (technical) questions are : > : > Do you support maintaining the current arrangement of linking UT1 : > and UTC (to provide a celestial time reference)? : > : > Do you have any technical difficulty in introducing leap second : > today? : > : > Would you support the revision of Recommendation ITU-R TF.460-6? : > : > If it is agreed to eliminate leap second within 5 years after : > approval of the revision of Recommendation ITU-R TF.460-6, would : > that create technical difficulties for your administration? : > : > The US draft answers from USWP7A Chairman Wayne Hanson are : > : > no : > yes : > yes : > no : > : > The US SG7 will have a telecon on 2010-08-16. : > : > I expect that some of this content should appear at : > https://www.ussg7.org/default.aspx : > Other international delegations are presumably engaged in similar : > review processes. : > : > -- : > Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS) : > UCO/Lick Observatory Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 : > University of California Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 : > Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m : > ___ : > LEAPSECS mailing list : > LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com : > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs : > : ___ : LEAPSECS mailing list : LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com : http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs : : ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
I observe that the [U.S.] International Telecommunications Advisory Committee is part of the U.S. State department. The part of that committee discussed below is known in full as International Telecommunications Advisory Committee, Radiocommunications sector, Study Group 7: Science services, Working Party 7A (ITAC-R Study Group 7 WP 7A) (Source: http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/adcom/itac/index.htm and https://www.ussg7.org/default.aspx) I would speculate that the members of Congress who authorized the change change in basis of U.S. time from mean solar time to UTC presumed that it was a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo that could not perceived by ordinary voters. If the leap second is dropped, the change will become perceptible to ordinary voters, especially when there are several seconds difference in the seconds field of legal time in the U.S. compared to some other countries. When enough information about the position of the U.S. WP 7A becomes available, it might be appropriate to bring to the attention of members of Congress that an obscure portion of a State Department committee is trying to change the meaning of the language in legislation in a way that will be perceptible to voters. Gerry Ashton On 2010-08-04 1:30 PM, Steve Allen wrote: According to the ITU-R the next meeting of SG7 will happen in Geneva on 2010-10-04 and 2010-10-12. According to the US ITAC-R the issue of leap seconds in UTC will be considered by ITU-R SG7. The summary from V. Timofeev explains that last year ITU-R WP7A decided that they could not reach consensus and that they had addressed all the technical issues, so they advanced the proposed revision of Rec 460 to SG7. In the absence of approval from WP7A, SG7 could not approve, nor send it back to WP7A, so the draft has waited. Timofeev has released a questionnaire to the delegations along with instructions that SG7 should only consider technical issues. Technical issues would mean the draft is to return to WP7A. Other-then-technical issues are to be referred to the Radiocommunication Assembly. The 4 (technical) questions are Do you support maintaining the current arrangement of linking UT1 and UTC (to provide a celestial time reference)? Do you have any technical difficulty in introducing leap second today? Would you support the revision of Recommendation ITU-R TF.460-6? If it is agreed to eliminate leap second within 5 years after approval of the revision of Recommendation ITU-R TF.460-6, would that create technical difficulties for your administration? The US draft answers from USWP7A Chairman Wayne Hanson are no yes yes no The US SG7 will have a telecon on 2010-08-16. I expect that some of this content should appear at https://www.ussg7.org/default.aspx Other international delegations are presumably engaged in similar review processes. -- Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick ObservatoryNatural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99855 University of CaliforniaVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Steve Allen wrote: According to the ITU-R the next meeting of SG7 will happen in Geneva on 2010-10-04 and 2010-10-12. Makes one wonder what they'll do with the intercalary week in between... Timofeev has released a questionnaire to the delegations along with instructions that SG7 should only consider technical issues. Technical issues would mean the draft is to return to WP7A. Other-then-technical issues are to be referred to the Radiocommunication Assembly. Proper system engineering practices do not artificially separate requirements into technical versus other-than-technical bins. Some technical requirements are non-quantitative. Many "other" requirements are eminently quantitative. A trade-off requires building figures-of-merit for all requirements and evaluating different schemes for combining and contrasting the quantitative scores and the sensitivity of different issues to various parameters. By all means debate the issues - although does the Radiocommunication Assembly have a broad enough mandate to appropriately address the issues? However, don't pretend that only real engineers can properly understand technical issues, while "other-than-technical" issues are some mash-up of trivial politics. Do you support maintaining the current arrangement of linking UT1 and UTC (to provide a celestial time reference)? Yes. The current standard is viable for centuries, providing copious time to discuss options outside the current politicized process. Do you have any technical difficulty in introducing leap second today? No. The alternative would cause more trouble than it naively claims to circumvent. Would you support the revision of Recommendation ITU-R TF.460-6? No. And TF.460-6 doesn't resolve the underlying geophysical issue or provide a future standards path to make the inevitable much larger and more intrusive adjustments to civil timekeeping that will be needed. If it is agreed to eliminate leap second within 5 years after approval of the revision of Recommendation ITU-R TF.460-6, would that create technical difficulties for your administration? Yes. The US draft answers from USWP7A Chairman Wayne Hanson are no yes yes no USWP7A clearly doesn't represent the interests of astronomers or of general civil timekeeping. Civil timekeeping is layered on mean solar time - a constant offset from the underlying sidereal period. Pretending otherwise is naive. Those professionals who need a timescale without leap seconds have numerous options to choose from. Leave UTC alone. UTC without leap seconds would no longer be a flavor of Universal Time. Rob Seaman National Optical Astronomy Observatory ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
