In message: <1010232041.aa28...@ivan.harhan.org>
msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) writes:
: P.S. This E-mail message has been composed and sent using 1979
: technology.
I'm using 1985 technology here: emacs :)
Warner
___
LEAPSECS m
Warner Losh wrote:
> 2010 is a radically different world than 1970 when
> leap seconds were invented.
Then clearly the right solution is to abolish and ban all technology
invented after December 31, 1979!
MS
P.S. This E-mail message has been composed and sent using 1979
technology.
___
One point that the leap second haters make is that leap seconds are
hard.
There are a number of reasons for this, but the biggest one is
acceptance. Leap seconds are hard, so why implement them right,
people will just reboot, or ntp will slew the time difference out. It
just doesn't matter enoug
On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Hal Murray wrote:
How many of these systems CURRENTLY properly handle leap seconds?
How
many of these cell phones and space systems and digital devices
"buried
beneath Antarctic ice" CURRENTLY are built to a specification that a
minute can contain either 59,
> How many of these systems CURRENTLY properly handle leap seconds? How
> many of these cell phones and space systems and digital devices "buried
> beneath Antarctic ice" CURRENTLY are built to a specification that a
> minute can contain either 59, 60, or 61 seconds? Or that when a leap
> second
On 23 Oct 2010 at 5:21, Finkleman, Dave wrote:
> Now, shout back.
You still haven't learned how to reply to the list without
backquoting an entire digest, I see, although one would think that
the silliness of this style would become quickly apparent once you
received the next digest which co
Space News did publish my editorial, but late to need -- if would ever have had
any impact no matter what the publication date.
Ken Seidelmann, John Seago, and I are organizing an assessment and normative
outcomes through ITU-R, ISO, and the JCGM. I pulled many threads, and most
led to the Jo
On 22 Oct 2010, at 18:16, Rob Seaman wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Matsakis, Demetrios wrote:
>
>> I have now heard from two sources that the revised ITU-R draft
>> recommendation TF.460-6 passed a major hurdle in Geneva last week. It will
>> be sent by SG7 to the January 2012 Radiocom
On 2010-10-23, at 02:14, Jonathan E. Hardis wrote:
>
> You're free to insert an inexpensive interface box between your data source
> and the systems that use the data that adds or subtracts however many integer
> number of seconds you wish. For example, it would be trivial to set a
> private c
