On 10 Jan 2012, at 1959, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Ian Batten said:
>> You cannot set up a bijection between successive 1s timestamps of UTC and
>> successive valid 1s timestamps of UK Civil Time, because the civil
>> timestamps between 01:00:00 and 02:00:00 on the fourth Sunday in October
>
Ian Batten said:
> You cannot set up a bijection between successive 1s timestamps of UTC and
> successive valid 1s timestamps of UK Civil Time, because the civil timestamps
> between 01:00:00 and 02:00:00 on the fourth Sunday in October each map to two
> distinct UTC timestamps, as they are repe
Rob Seaman wrote:
> Obviously we would be forced to adapt. We can't all be a "one-man
> micronation" like Michael :-) More power to him, but that isn't a
> "coordinated" plan either.
My "one-man micronation" is connected to the Internet with its own
public, static, world-reachable IPv4 address
Rob Seaman wrote:
> Tony Finch wrote:
>
> > It used to be local apparent solar time. Then local mean solar time.
> > Then standard mean solar time. Then standard time with daylight
> > saving. The definition of civil time is evidently not fixed.
>
> One notes that TAI is not on the list.
Not yet,
On 1/10/2012 12:06 PM, Ian Batten wrote:
But unfortunately, UK civil time does not include a DST indicator
Is there a law or rule that specifies how UK civil time ought to be written?
Where can we examine the law or rule to see if there is a DST indicator
or not?
If there is no rule, how is th
On 10 Jan 2012, at 1528, Tony Finch wrote:
> Rob Seaman wrote:
>> Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>>> It is only one possible definition, not the only one. That makes it a
>>> belief, not a mathematical identity.
>>
>> Alternate definition?
>
> It used to be local apparent solar time. Then local mean
Tony Finch wrote:
> It used to be local apparent solar time. Then local mean solar time. Then
> standard mean solar time. Then standard time with daylight saving. The
> definition of civil time is evidently not fixed.
One notes that TAI is not on the list. If it were, it would be preferable to
Rob Seaman wrote:
> Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > It is only one possible definition, not the only one. That makes it a
> > belief, not a mathematical identity.
>
> Alternate definition?
It used to be local apparent solar time. Then local mean solar time. Then
standard mean solar time. Then standard
"Such a following"?
Only 18% of respondents preferred "decouple UTC and Earth Rotation":
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/18_AAS_11-668_Epilogue.pdf
--
On Jan 10, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Peter Vince wrote:
> While there will undoubtedly be some fallout, I think the reason th
In message <94cc9abe-a68b-4dbe-a6f0-2bf9e5bbd...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>The question is, are you guys going to help clean up the mess?
Both Warner and I have spent years of our lives cleaning up after the mess.
I sense however, that we're not talking about the same mess.
--
Poul-Hennin
While there will undoubtedly be some fallout, I think the reason this
proposal has such a following is that we currently have a *large*
"bunch of people" who have to "clean up the mess" after each and every
leap-second. If we do this now, then that's it for tens of
generations, by which time exper
My, my, my. What a fuss over a few messages that you guys could simply have
ignored.
Warner Losh wrote:
> It is not my job to make their plans for them, nor is it ITUs. If things
> change, you need to adapt.
No, it is my job to clean up the mess this will leave. It is the job of many
other
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>
> If you said that people prefer that the middle of the solar night be within
> a couple of hours of 00:00 local civil time, I might be more ready to agree.
Actually it's more like people prefer sunrise to be near 7am. They don't
much care about noon or midnight, and a
On Jan 9, 2012, at 11:31 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
> As you point out, this is an approximation not a definition of a fundamental
> concept. The synodic day is good from now until the Earth melts. It is the
> difference between the rotational period of a planet and its day. See, for
> instance:
On Jan 9, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
> See the Simpson, Storz and Malys contributions at
> http://futureofutc.org/preprints/
>
> "Several years to update" is not a plan.
It is not my job to make their plans for them, nor is it ITUs. If things
change, you need to adapt.
Warner
__
Now, please stop the whining.
Pot. Kettle.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Le 10/01/2012 08:18, Poul-Henning Kamp a écrit :
Rob,
To say that your unconvincing statement of conjecture as fact is getting
a bit tiresome may be to understate the situation somewhat.
If you start with the name, the word that sets UTC apart from all
the other UTs is the word "coordinated".
Ian Batten said:
>> A more accurate statement is: ?Civil time is mean solar time?, because this
>> is really just a definition of terms (p.7)
>
> I know you really, fervently believe that to be not only true currently but
> inevitably and essentially true, but it just isn't.
Indeed, and Rob nee
18 matches
Mail list logo
