On Wed 2011/02/09 06:25:25 -, Ian Batten wrote
in a message to: Tom Van Baak ,
Leap Second Discussion List
>Although that mandates access to a continuously reliable source of DST
>changeover dates and offsets. It also opens the interesting question
>of what timestamps mean in a non-mo
On 9 Feb 2011, at 03:31, Tom Van Baak wrote:
>> Note that they require "Eastern Military (24 hour clock) Time", not UTC.
>
> Do these really differ fundamentally?
> I'm assuming you can subtract 5 hours (or 4 for DST) by hand.
Although that mandates access to a continuously reliable source of D
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
Note that they require "Eastern Military (24 hour clock) Time", not UTC.
Do these really differ fundamentally?
I'm assuming you can subtract 5 hours (or 4 for DST) by hand.
Note that they assert the existence of "the" NIST atomic clock as if
there were only one.
They're ok. There is only one
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
The US financial industry regulations are changing to require
one second accuracy in the timestamps instead of 3 seconds.
http://www1.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@comp/@regis/documents/appsupportdocs/p122784.pdf
Chapter 2 is all about clock synchronization.
Note that they require "Eastern M
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
Tony Finch wrote:
> Getting further off-topic:
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande?printable=true
Great article! Thanks!
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leaps
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"
As I said in my last posting, civil time isn't my issue. The issue is
the availability of time scales and intervals for our purposes should
UTC no longer meet that need.
UTC is statutory in the United States, but any version of UTC is
acceptable as long as it's OK with the Department of Commerce
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Finkleman, Dave wrote:
> If it becomes unsuitable for our requirements, what is the alternative?
Download a table of DUT1 predictions from the IERS.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7,
DE
PHK is on the mark. I do not know why SOCRATES cites as conjunctions
things that are already docked or planned to come close. I have not
been able to convince my colleagues. May if PHK submitted a comment to
them, it would help.
I will stay out of the discussion of the need to synchronize civil
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 <4d516e58.3010...@comcast.net>, Gerard Ashton writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> History has shown that very few, if any, governments have been unable
>> to carry through their more or less well thought out policies in this
>> area.
>
>Well, it can be difficult to identify government
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
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
History has shown that very few, if any, governments have been unable
to carry through their more or less well thought out policies in this
area.
Well, it can be difficult to identify government policies; various
office holders and agencies tend to scurry about
follow
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
Tony Finch wrote:
> One example of an existing secular change of local time might be the
> tectonic drift of Hawaii, but since it moves about 1m east every decade
> the effect is about three orders of magnitude less than the TAI vs. UT1
> rate error.
Since Hawaii is in the middle of a plate, not
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Gerard Ashton wrote:
>
> A single permanent time zone change is not a secular change; in this
> context a secular change is one that increases indefinitely, as opposed
> to a periodic change, in which the positive and negative changes cancel
> out in the long run.
One example o
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
> Ian Batten wrote:
>
> > Knife-edge systems which rely on the correct application of high-grade
> > skills may suit people with "The Right Stuff", but real-world
> > engineering has to function when the operators are merely average, or
> > tired, or distracted
On 2/8/2011 9:51 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Gerard Ashton said:
A secular change to civil time that would be perceptible without the aid
of a clock has
never been introduced,
How about those places that moved timezone permanently.
A single permanent time zone change is not a secular change
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
Gerard Ashton said:
> A secular change to civil time that would be perceptible without the aid
> of a clock has
> never been introduced,
How about those places that moved timezone permanently.
Actually, without a clock, how would you *ever* know that civil time had
changed?
--
Clive D.W. Feath
Ian Batten wrote:
> Knife-edge systems which rely on the correct application of high-grade skills
> may suit people with "The Right Stuff", but real-world engineering has to
> function when the operators are merely average, or tired, or distracted.
There was a recent Risk's Digest contribution
On 2/8/2011 6:42 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
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.
Stephen should add this to the consensus building list.
Does that m
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
> 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.
>
> Stephen should add this to the consensus building list.
Does that mean that you agree that its v
On 8 Feb 2011, at 00:07, Finkleman, Dave wrote:
Addressing all comments at once:
1. I had a similar exchange with Yuri Davydov, then Deputy Director
of
ROSKOSMOS, the Russian Space Agency. His response to operators not
understanding their own operation was, "Get smarter operators!" He i
On 8 Feb 2011, at 04:07, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Recently my mom was visiting me in Florida from New York, and when I
was taking her to the airport, she noticed the time was about 4:45
PM, and that it was broad daylight outside, and remarked that at this
time in New York it would be dark alread
48 matches
Mail list logo
