Le 05/01/2012 06:36, Harlan Stenn a écrit :
ntpd can easily track SI seconds or "angle time" seconds. The
differences are small enough over a day to be easily amortized.
It would not be all that difficult to create an NTPv5 protocol (for
example) that would include "timescale" as a parameter.
Michael Sokolov said:
> For me "GMT" has a very simple meaning: it basically means "the exact
> timescale doesn't matter, it can be anything as long as it comes from
> someone like Rob Seaman and NOT from someone like PHK".
Who let Humpty-Dumpty on to this list?
--
Clive D.W. Feather |
Le 05/01/2012 09:07, Clive D.W. Feather a écrit :
Michael Sokolov said:
But are you sure that NTP would be the right protocol? The first and
most immediate problem with NTP is that if the ITU bastards have their
way this month,
For me "GMT" has a very simple meaning: it basically means "the ex
On 5 Jan 2012, at 07:53, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Ian Batten said:
>> Given there's some ambiguity about leap-year rules out into the far future
>> anyway,
>
> There is? Both the Papal bull and UK legislation look clear enough to me.
Sorry, that was mis-phrased. I mean there's some debate,
Ian Batten wrote:
> I think there's a certain degree of hubris involved in any discussion in
> which you attempt to solve problems that will not be confronted for
> thousands of years.
True. But there is quite a bit of arrogance involved in *causing* such
problems.
Fundamentally changing the sem
If the proposed change goes through, we will need a new term, perhaps
"proleptic UTC2017", for
post-2017 UTC extended backwards by subtracting as many minutes of 60 SI
seconds as desired.
Gerry Ashton
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
--- Begin Message ---
>From bulc.iers-boun...@syrte4.obspm.fr Thu Jan 05 14:25:12 2012
Return-path:
Envelope-to: markus.k...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Delivery-date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:25:12 +
Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.152])
by mta0.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
Markus Kuhn wrote:
> A positive leap second will be introduced at the end of June 2012.
Slight surprise there. It's the obviously-correct scheduling to minimise
|UT1-UTC|, but IERS has been favouring December in recent years,
and there was plenty of slack to postpone this leap until December.
(Ac
Le 05/01/2012 15:39, Zefram a écrit :
Markus Kuhn wrote:
A positive leap second will be introduced at the end of June 2012.
Slight surprise there. It's the obviously-correct scheduling to minimise
|UT1-UTC|, but IERS has been favouring December in recent years,
and there was plenty of slack to
Follow the countdown...
http://www.leapsecond.com/java/nixie.htm
/tvb
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
On Jan 4, 2012, at 10:04 PM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
> while others will continue serving the existing UTC1972 timescale.
A couple of points:
(1) NTP is defined by the RFC to be UTC today, although some folks violate this
and run GPS or TAI time over it (some crazy people even run Julian time).
(
On Jan 4, 2012, at 11:27 PM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
> That's what one gets for
> redefining existing timescales and forcing a totally different
> definition under an old name by bullying and fiat instead of
> cooperation and consensus.
Why should this time be any different than the last time? Le
On Jan 5, 2012, at 12:16 AM, Ian Batten wrote:
> Given there's some ambiguity about leap-year rules out into the far future
> anyway,
What's the ambiguity? As far as I know, the official rules that were
promulgated have never changed. There's many proposal to deal with needing an
extra leap
On Jan 5, 2012, at 5:29 AM, Gerard Ashton wrote:
> If the proposed change goes through, we will need a new term, perhaps
> "proleptic UTC2017", for
> post-2017 UTC extended backwards by subtracting as many minutes of 60 SI
> seconds as desired.
The current proposal has no leap hours, so wouldn'
On Thu 2012-01-05T10:18:31 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
> Why should this time be any different than the last time? Leap
> seconds were rushed in, at the last minute with little coordination or
> cooperation in a manner that left hard feelings for years.
This is what the ITU-R is constituted to
Warner Losh wrote:
>The current proposal has no leap hours, so wouldn't the subtraction be
>unbounded?
I think the point is to have a term for TAI - 35 s, or whatever the
formula ends up being. We'll need to distinguish between these time
scales at least:
(a) UTC with leap seconds up to 2017 an
I don't think the original poster had this in mind, but there is a
Revised Julian Calendar which is described
in Wikipedia, and is equivalent to the Gregorian Calendar until AD 2800.
It has been adopted by
some Orthodox churches. It was defined at a church meeting in the 1920s
(before the change
On Thu 2012-01-05T17:40:09 +, Zefram hath writ:
> I think the point is to have a term for TAI - 35 s, or whatever the
> formula ends up being. We'll need to distinguish between these time
> scales at least:
but wait, there's more
The ATSC-Mobile DTV Standard defines the AT epoch as
1980-01-0
Nero Imhard wrote:
> Fundamentally changing the semantics of a time scale while retaining the
> name WILL be a future source of confusion. This can be prevented by
> properly changing over legal time to a uniform time scale (which seems to
> be the requirement).
An essential feature of the hones
-Original Message-
From: Steve Allen
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:56 AM
To: Leap Second Discussion List
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] New terminology will be needed.
... but wait, there's more
---
FYI: for spaceflight use we prefer an internationally-standardiz
Warner Losh wrote:
> (1) NTP is defined by the RFC to be UTC today,
Yes, but which version of UTC? Some NTP server operators may very
well choose to continue serving a leaping version of UTC (what I call
UTC1972) well past 2017, for a couple of reasons:
a) because this "redefined UTC" is no lo
I just wrote:
: The difference is that with the vastly enlarged number of stakeholders,
: the protests can be a lot louder. The best protests are those done
: with actions rather than just words, and that means continuing to
: operate real-life systems according to the old definition,
: intention
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> Do people have a notion how we'll recon time when the accumulated delta
> becomes large (like on the order of 100k seconds)? UTC+27?
I reckon the timezone fudge is workable for rate errors as large as 1e-5,
which would imply a timezone change every 11 years.
More speculat
Tony Finch wrote:
> I reckon the timezone fudge is workable for rate errors as large as 1e-5,
> which would imply a timezone change every 11 years.
>
> More speculation along these lines: http://fanf.livejournal.com/116480.html
And I have reckoned the exact opposite. A leap hour or timezone shi
In message <723ec524-ef36-47ec-988b-c27bd8a61...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>And need it be pointed out again that absolutely nothing about the
>"Draft Revision to ITU-R Recommendation TF.460-6" even breathes a
>whisper that any variation of "timezone fudge" is on the table.
That is because IT
People involved in government and international organizations sometimes
have strange
ways of deciding what their duties are. It seems bizarre that an
international organization
would establish standards for broadcast time scales without expecting
that the
broadcast time scales would be used as t
mike cook wrote:
> Le 05/01/2012 15:39, Zefram a écrit :
>> Markus Kuhn wrote:
>>> A positive leap second will be introduced at the end of June 2012.
>> Slight surprise there. It's the obviously-correct scheduling to minimise
>> |UT1-UTC|, but IERS has been favouring December in recent years,
>>
In message , Rob Seaman writes:
>I had been expecting one this December just past, not next.
Indeed, but I notice three details:
This leapsecond is scheduled on a saturday, if they had used december past
it would have been one of the more special fridays in the year, so it
may be a concern for m
In message <4f063fb6.20...@comcast.net>, Gerard Ashton writes:
>People involved in government and international organizations sometimes
>have strange ways of deciding what their duties are.
I am pretty sure USAnian politics would be even funnier of "Some
shady UN agency tries to dictate how we s
29 matches
Mail list logo
