Oh, and our own beloved TVB whose time lab can keep UTC no worse than
NIST or whoever owns the leapseconds.com domain. Once IERS ceases to
allow the use of their IT resources to distribute leap second
announcements, a new mailing list will need to be set up.
Leapsecond.com is clearly a good place
Michael Sokolov wrote:
> Are you saying you are going to vote for a sheriff
>who would storm her house with guns to force her to stop using the term
>UTC for her own time scale with her own leap seconds?
No, and I don't see how you could think I was proposing such a thing.
I mi
Zefram wrote:
> Time scales are not easily killed off. The general concept of a time
> scale that uses leap seconds to coordinate TAI and UT obviously has
> its advantages, and some users would presumably find it convenient to
> continue to have such a time scale, even if they're no longer allow
Rob Seaman wrote:
>So - assume UTC is a dead loss. Then what?
Time scales are not easily killed off. The general concept of a time
scale that uses leap seconds to coordinate TAI and UT obviously has
its advantages, and some users would presumably find it convenient to
continue to have such a tim
In message <2b4e4363-72b2-4361-a562-5eb8b9cd1...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Heretofore the "UT" in UTC has meant "Universal Time".
Just like the 'U' in "UN" has meant "united" with little practical effect...
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org |
Steve Allen wrote:
> On Mon 2010-10-25T12:23:52 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ:
>> Managing the timescale wasn't originally a politically process.
>
> Sure it was. [...]
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> That should have put any compentent astronomer on notice that these
> "broadcast" timescales were go
Nero Imhard wrote:
> leap seconds being a vast improvement over rubber seconds
That is your opinion (and apparently that of the other technocrats), but
I totally disagree. I want mean solar time, but I want it to be a real
number with all the standard mathematical properties of a real number.
On 2010-10-25, at 16:58, Warner Losh wrote:
>> Do you really consider it reasonable to change the definition to
>> which the law refers? When complying with the law proves too
>> cumbersome, shouldn't legislators consider a change in the relevant
>> law?
>
> Yes. It happens all the time. GMT h
In message <8f87309b-663b-4ca8-ba8d-f45c41010...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>On Oct 25, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> How could it ever be considered good design to embed a politically
>> controled timescale, subject to lots of valid scientific criticism,
>> into the design of
On Mon 2010-10-25T12:23:52 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ:
> Managing the timescale wasn't originally a politically process.
Sure it was. At the founding of Rome the month was something
controlled by the phase of the moon, and that made sense for
the purposes of commerce given that transport of good
On Oct 25, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> How could it ever be considered good design to embed a politically
> controled timescale, subject to lots of valid scientific criticism,
> into the design of astronomical equipment ?
Managing the timescale wasn't originally a politically pr
> Yes, indeed. It has been nothing but trouble for us that the usual
> human circadian rythm is a couple of hours longer than 24 hours the
> planet currently cares to rotate in.
The last I heard, it was just over 24 hours, and the original
research that had turned up a figure of around 25 hours w
In message <09b6e6af-6426-4068-a4a8-f4ade644a...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>No. Diurnal rhythms are more pronounced than ever in human systems
>and processes. Allowing these to drift is a poor engineering choice.
Yes, indeed. It has
On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <6f0a7636-bc9c-4617-b925-ef3849744...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>
>> Leap seconds are a means to an end. The end won't vanish when the
>> leap seconds do.
>
> But didn't that end vanish a long time ago, as in "more than 100
--
From: "Rob Seaman"
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 7:53 AM
To: "Leap Second Discussion List"
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Cost: getting rid of GMT & discontinuing leap
seconds
On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Brian Garrett wrote:
More accurately,
On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:26 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> You astronomers knew (and complained!) that UTC was unscientific when leap
> seconds were introduced, why then did you start to use it ?
That we were bullied before excuses bullying now?
> And having done so, why do you complain that the
In message <6f0a7636-bc9c-4617-b925-ef3849744...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Leap seconds are a means to an end. The end won't vanish when the
>leap seconds do.
But didn't that end vanish a long time ago, as in "more than 100 years" ago ?
Humans used the suns position to reckon time since ti
On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message ,
> Sanj
> eev Gupta writes:
>
>> I am still opposed, in principle, to letting NTP time (for example) diverge
>> from The One True Cosmic Time;
>
> What "One True Cosmic Time" would that be ?
Both sides (assuming this discuss
> Do you really consider it reasonable to change the definition to
> which the law refers? When complying with the law proves too
> cumbersome, shouldn't legislators consider a change in the relevant
> law?
Yes. It happens all the time. GMT has gone through at least a dozen
redefinitions over th
On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Brian Garrett wrote:
> More accurately, civil timekeeping is sorta kinda like mean solar time. For
> now.
See numerous (perhaps beyond count) threads from the archives.
One more time. The entire reason that the ITU-R scheme can be contemplated is
that the SI "se
Warner Losh wrote:
> UTC is the only game in town. It is the legal time everywhere, for
> all practical purposes[*].
Do you really consider it reasonable to change the definition to which the
law refers? When complying with the law proves too cumbersome, shouldn't
legislators consider a change i
On 25 Oct 2010, at 02:19, Warner Losh wrote:
> NASA already uses GMT when they really mean UTC.
Microsoft use GMT when they mean "clock on the wall time in countries whose
winter timezone is GMT or UTC, including daylight savings" which is even more
pernicious. Hence calendar appointments say
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 15:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message ,
> Sanj
> eev Gupta writes:
>
> >I am still opposed, in principle, to letting NTP time (for example)
> diverge
> >from The One True Cosmic Time;
>
> What "One True Cosmic Time" would that be ?
>
My apologies, I left out the "s
In message , Sanj
eev Gupta writes:
>I am still opposed, in principle, to letting NTP time (for example) diverge
>from The One True Cosmic Time;
What "One True Cosmic Time" would that be ?
One where astronauts on Mars would have to monitor earths rotation in order
to add or remove spurious seco
In message , Rob Seaman writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> Why did astronomers use UTC as timescale in their systems, where UT1 should
>> have been used?
>Astronomers use both UTC and the general notion of UT. Sometimes
>they use UT1. We use numerous other timescales that aren't based
>on m
--
From: "Rob Seaman"
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 4:53 PM
To: "Leap Second Discussion List"
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Cost: getting rid of GMT & discontinuing leap
seconds
(snipped in fulfillment of Abrahamic covenant)
The heart of my argument
26 matches
Mail list logo
