On 15 Feb 2011, at 05:46, Rob Seaman wrote:
> Combining these improved predictions with prudently relaxed DUT1 constraints
> should permit extending leap second scheduling to several years.
>
> These steps can be taken today with no tedious international negotiations.
The UK's standard time b
In message <8e992e8a-cc16-44ec-a73e-e569d9395...@batten.eu.org>, Ian Batten wri
tes:
>The UK's standard time broadcast, which is funded by the government,
>contains DUT1 in a format which doesn't permit |DUT1|>0.9.Whatever
>people argue (rightly) about the de facto legal time in the UK being
>
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>> The UK's standard time broadcast, which is funded by the government,
>> contains DUT1 in a format which doesn't permit |DUT1|>0.9.Whatever
>> people argue (rightly) about the de facto legal time in the UK being
>> UTC, the de jure legal time is "GMT" which is taken to
In message <20110215100536.gd78...@davros.org>, "Clive D.W. Feather" writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>>> The UK's standard time broadcast, which is funded by the government,
>>> contains DUT1 in a format which doesn't permit |DUT1|>0.9.Whatever
>>> people argue (rightly) about the de facto le
On 15 Feb 11, at 1011, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20110215100536.gd78...@davros.org>, "Clive D.W. Feather" writes:
>> Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>
The UK's standard time broadcast, which is funded by the government,
contains DUT1 in a format which doesn't permit |DUT1|>0.9.
In message , Ian Batten wri
tes:
>Mean Solar Time = UT1 = GMT:
So everybody using NTP and deriving GMT withut applying DUT are in
breach of the law ?
I bet more people would be surprised and in violation, than you will
find in compliance...
For one thing, all the Rugby receiving radio-controlle
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>> Mean Solar Time = UT1 = GMT:
> So everybody using NTP and deriving GMT withut applying DUT are in
> breach of the law ?
They're simply getting it wrong. The law doesn't require the use of GMT
for everything; it just defines what legal time is.
If it came to a lawsuit ov
On 15 Feb 2011 at 11:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> So everybody using NTP and deriving GMT withut applying DUT are in
> breach of the law ?
Technically they are, if they use such a time for legal purposes (as
opposed to just privately having it on their wall or PC, where nobody
can force anybo
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 22:46 -0700, Rob Seaman wrote:
> What's the point?
>
your discussions circle around standards and law
yet presently here on earth no-one follows these standards or laws
there is merely "crowd convention"
the challenge is not to study 150 years of committee minutes and t
Ian Batten wrote:
> The UK's standard time broadcast, which is funded by the government, contains
> DUT1 in a format which doesn't permit |DUT1|>0.9.
The point is that the state of the art appears to allow the prediction of UT1
to better than 0.1s over 500 days - perhaps even better than 0.05s
On 02/15/2011 09:12, Rob Seaman wrote:
So, what is the state of the art for long term predictions of UT1? Could the
algorithms used by the EOP PCC teams simply be run on the historical Bulletin B
numbers to find out?
At the Torin conference they had a sliding scale for confidence in UT1
pre
On Feb 15, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On 02/15/2011 09:12, Rob Seaman wrote:
>> So, what is the state of the art for long term predictions of UT1? Could
>> the algorithms used by the EOP PCC teams simply be run on the historical
>> Bulletin B numbers to find out?
>
> At the Torin
On Tue 2011/02/15 15:25:49 PDT, Rob Seaman wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>Correct me if I'm wrong: Bulletin A are the predictions (using methods
>presumably less advanced than the EOP PCC). Bulletin B are the final
>observed parameters.
Yes, but the explanatory supplement
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Mark Calabretta wrote:
>
> The quadratic calamity is one of the few concrete arguments given by
> the proponents of dropping leap seconds (viz the GPS World article).
I had another look at the article, and it doesn't use the quadratic
increase DUT1 as an argument against UTC.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Paul Sheer wrote:
>
> Have you looked at the Olson source?
Yes.
> In any case, whatever solution ye'all come up with should not
> merely be In Principle. It should come as a patch on some real code.
No patches are needed.
If leap seconds are abolished then POSIX's model of
Mark Calabretta wrote:
> It would be circular then to compare the predictions against EOP C04 itself.
My point is just that archival data is sufficient to characterize the real
world behavior of the algorithms already developed. We needn't wait ten years
to know if data limited to what was ava
Tony Finch :
> [...]
>
> There is already code to handle leap seconds like timezones, but it is
> incompatible with POSIX and large amounts of other code and with NTP and
> other time broadcast systems.
>
Of course you are exactly right.
Now, consider an application that wants to support BOT
17 matches
Mail list logo
