Ian Batten said:
However, it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that UTC as constituted meets
this requirement, but UTC without leap seconds doesn't. S(9) doesn't say
GMT +/- 1s, it says GMT. Why is one second's error bar axiomatically OK,
while 1 minute, 1 hour, etc, not? The legislation
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
With respect to national laws, they are N times easier to fix than
an international treaty, and therefore much less of a concern.
Then it was a mistake for those treaties to directly refer to UTC instead
of indirectly to the internationally agreed upon reference time.
In message 719683fad725c87fb7cb156e7eabdb7a.squir...@mx.pipe.nl, Nero Imhard
writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
With respect to national laws, they are N times easier to fix than
an international treaty, and therefore much less of a concern.
Then it was a mistake for those treaties to directly
On 2012 Jan 18, at 00:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
UTC's semantics is the timescale we agree to coordinate on, its
More precisely something like this:
We will coordinate our efforts so as to produce a time scale
which is more suitable for all purposes.
The annals of the CCIR meetings from the
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Which part of Coordinated did you not understand in UTC ?
Oh, the C part was fine, but it's the UT part that
people/entities/coutries seem to be having second thoughts about.
N
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
On 18 Jan 2012, at 0805, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
I am aware of case law where a difference of 8 seconds between clocks was
relevant. That's the shortest interval I've seen so far in my searches.
And that's between clocks, not between a clock and some abstract reference. If
MSF, GPS user
On 18 January 2012 08:28, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
Which part of Coordinated did you not understand in UTC ?
UTC's semantics is the timescale we agree to coordinate on, its
relationship to the heavens above was merely a convenient matter
of implementation.
Well I've
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
Here is a nut-cracker much better than a Danglish split infinitive:
http://www.agile-news.com/news-560573-Time-who-will-vote-on-the-side.html
| King Charles II appointed Donald Di De Yue Hanfu as Chief Astronomer
| Royal
John Flamsteed will be rotating in his grave.
In message 20120118122617.gc56...@davros.org, Clive D.W. Feather writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
Here is a nut-cracker much better than a Danglish split infinitive:
http://www.agile-news.com/news-560573-Time-who-will-vote-on-the-side.html
| King Charles II appointed Donald Di De Yue Hanfu
Well I've always interpretted it as a co-ordinated form of UT. Steve Allens
next email implies others viewed it that way as well.
Stephen,
My reading of the original documents in the 60's is that the
co-ordinate was both astronomical-atomic and atomic-atomic.
I don't know how old you are,
Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
As has been said here many times they are two different kinds of
timekeeping, in theory as well as in real life. The ITU pretending
otherwise won't change that.
They aren't pretending otherwise, they are dealing with a proposal to
move civil time from one to
They aren't moving anything. They are removing access to the Earth
orientation timescale.
Having failed to reach consensus, they should similarly fail to vote.
Rob Seaman
NOAO
--
Tony Finch wrote:
Rob Seaman wrote:
As has been said here many times they are two different kinds of
We've talked a bit about tradeoffs between tracking precision and
scheduling lead time in UTC. Obviously, any loosening of the tracking
precision in order to give more lead time would require changes to those
applications that relied on the tighter tracking. So maybe we ought
to (a) be explicit
They aren't moving anything. They are removing access to the Earth
orientation timescale.
Having failed to reach consensus, they should similarly fail to vote.
Rob Seaman
NOAO
Rob,
Get real. Do you really think access to the Earth orientation
timescale will be removed? Is this a hidden
Anyone specifically using such a tracking version of UTC
wants to track earth angle, rather than coordinate with civil
time, so why not just let them use UT1? That way they get
the best precision available, which is currently at the ones
or tens of microseconds level.
What these users want is a
I swear I typed SOPA. Something changed it before it went over the wire...
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Tom Van Baak wrote:
Anyone specifically using such a tracking version of UTC
wants to track earth angle, rather than coordinate with civil
time, so why not just let them use UT1?
Because access to UT1 requires frequent network access. I'm thinking
about atomic clocks that sit on a shelf for
Because access to UT1 requires frequent network access. I'm thinking
about atomic clocks that sit on a shelf for years, or which will be used
in isolated locations. We've discussed the use cases (for longer lead
time on leap seconds) in previous threads.
On network -- are there any earth
On 18 Jan, 2012, at 22:45 , Zefram wrote:
Tom Van Baak wrote:
Anyone specifically using such a tracking version of UTC
wants to track earth angle, rather than coordinate with civil
time, so why not just let them use UT1?
Because access to UT1 requires frequent network access. I'm thinking
Le 18/01/2012 15:24, Zefram a écrit :
Suppose we have UTC0 which aims to track UT1 within 1 s and schedules
leaps a year in advance, which is nearly the current UTC. Then UTC1
aims to track UT1 within 10 s, and schedules leaps a decade in advance.
UTC2 aims to track UT1 within 100 s, and
On Jan 18, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Zefram wrote:
Tom Van Baak wrote:
Anyone specifically using such a tracking version of UTC
wants to track earth angle, rather than coordinate with civil
time, so why not just let them use UT1?
Because access to UT1 requires frequent network access. I'm
Richard B. Langley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16611058
In full-fat form, the amendment would result in timezones that
are non-integer numbers of minutes offset from UT. These would be
incompatible with UTC. It's been a couple of decades since there were
any such zones in
On Jan 18, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
but I sure hope that astronomers wake up, stop complaining,
This is illogical (and borderline insulting). We're supposed to wake up,
but do so without talking about the issues?
and use UT1 and DUT1 for what they were designed for.
Le 18/01/2012 19:16, Ian Batten a écrit :
Oh, and for those that don't do UK politics, Jacob Rees Mogg is a man who would
come second in a competition for Jacob Rees Mogg tribute acts.
Don't be too hard on him. Every party needs one or two. It make the rest
look sharp. The problem comes when
Ian Batten i...@batten.eu.org wrote:
If people wish to argue that the '78 Act requires GMT (and, note, the
act only relates to the interpretation of other legislation, not to
civil contracts or what your watch says) then that's fine, but the
natural interpretation of GMT in 1978 would be the
On Wed 2012-01-18T18:42:03 +, Tony Finch hath writ:
Actually, no, because what the RGO called GMT and what they disseminated
as the official British civil time was the same as UTC from 1972. I expect
a court would take this as indicating that GMT should be interpreted as
what the duly
Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
On Wed 2012-01-18T18:42:03 +, Tony Finch hath writ:
Actually, no, because what the RGO called GMT and what they disseminated
as the official British civil time was the same as UTC from 1972. I expect
a court would take this as indicating that GMT
How many factual errors can you spot ?
http://www.canada.com/Leap+second+have+only+hours+live/6015224/story.html
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice
Fewer than some of the other stories :-)
A pretty reasonable Master's thesis in communications theory could be worked up
tracking the web of these stories. There are several bloodlines from the news
services and mutations of expression (whether errors or not) that propagate to
later
IWarner Losh wrote:
Universal Time is an abstract definition. It wasn't designed at all. It
models the time of day, on the average, of an important historical
observatory in a nation that had the political clout to get its observatory
named primary over all the other nations that had
Rob Seaman said:
Who has an actual requirement for an approximation of UT to 1s?
Almost everybody,
Oh?
I need an approximation of civil time to somewhere between 30s (when
catching a local train or watching a television programme [1]) and 5
minutes (when attending an internal meeting).
I have
From a french delegate :
The insteresting session will start thursday 13:00 UTC.
The decision will be made during that RA, so
deadline is Friday evening.
Voting procedure (needs confirmation) :
If a vote is required, a quorum of 50% of the delegates
is required ; if not reached, there will
but I sure hope that astronomers wake up, stop complaining,
This is illogical (and borderline insulting). We're supposed to
wake up, but do so without talking about the issues?
Rob,
Yeah, sorry, that was a bit over the top.
I would like at some point, regardless of how the ITU vote turns
On 17 Jan 2012 at 23:18, Warner Losh wrote:
But it just so happens that this draft changes UTC to match the
POSIX definition of time_t where leap seconds don't really exist...
It seems to be a rather blatant example of geek arrogance to say
that, when a tech standard fails to conform to
Tom Van Baak wrote:
I would like at some point, regardless of how the ITU vote turns out for this
list to collectively work toward external education rather than internal
bickering or google baiting.
My reply from last Friday still seems appropriate (appended). We're also
pretty proud of:
A new talking point from a long time listener, first time caller:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Seago, John
Subject: It just occurred to me...
Date: January 18, 2012 6:39:05 PM MST
It just occurred to me that, if the ITU votes to abolish leap seconds,
some people may think that takes
In message 4829d1f0-adf3-49a3-888f-c463802f7...@noao.edu, Rob Seaman writes:
Note that 460-7 says nothing about old UTC other than it stops in five
years; however, the specification for old UTC 460-6 will be officially
deprecated and inactive.
That would in my mind be a pretty perverse way to
37 matches
Mail list logo
