But this was not at all the case in the 60's where countries or
labs would vary by tens or hundreds of microseconds or even
many milliseconds.
See: http://www.leapsecond.com/hpj/v17n12/v17n12p16.jpg
And: http://www.leapsecond.com/hpj/v19n4/v19n4p18.jpg
A huge part of UTC was the formation of
Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
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,
On 18 Jan 2012 at 7:41, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I am pretty sure that at this point everybody read GMT as UTC in
those treaties, if they have not already been fixed.
So, basically:
Using a different name from UTC for a future time standard that is
unmoored from solar time is too problematic
Tony Finch wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
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
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/19/nytfrontpage/scan.jpg
(below the fold)
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
Redefining UTC would debase the entire family of Universal Time
terminology, including GMT.
UTC itself wrecked time terminology with thousands of years of history.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/
South Utsire: Westerly or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px6nS80SdkE
--
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 what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px6nS80SdkE
Does will take a landmark decision mean that the outcome of the vote is
already known?
N
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
In message 20f6aafc88d7250099e59890190b96cf.squir...@mx.pipe.nl, Nero Imhard
writes:
Does will take a landmark decision mean that the outcome of the vote is
already known?
Unsubstantiated rumours seems to say that leap seconds are gone, but I don't
see any of these rumours being sourced or
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Unsubstantiated rumours seems to say that leap seconds are gone,
At least one more. I hear Somerset is lovely in June...
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
One thing that amuses me in a perverse fashion, is that all the
news stories talk about how Time specialists, Timekeepers,
Scientists etc are deciding the fate etc. when in fact almost
all the delegates who can vote are diplomats, and the non-voting
delegates are almost entirely broadcast and
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Can we even find one single qualified time-nut in Geneva if we try ?
None of us can afford them:
http://www.ablogtoread.com/breaking-down-the-2011-grand-prix-d’horlogerie-de-geneve-awards/
BTW, is there anything actually informative in the youtube video? I
In message b4548797-6641-4bf3-a7a8-9a8bec9dd...@noao.edu, Rob Seaman writes:
BTW, is there anything actually informative in the youtube video?
Not, really, he's doing a damn good job at illustrating why so many
people don't understand what leap seconds are to begin with.
His pronounciation of
His pronounciation of lip seconds probably doesn't help.
I'll definitely buy you a beer when this is all over, if only for this comment.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
I have just emailed the ITU Press Office to enquire which webpage I
should watch for any announcements following the meeting and vote on
the Leap-Second. They replied that I should watch:
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/index.aspx?lang=en
Peter
Thought a link may be useful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/science/to-keep-or-kill-lowly-leap-second-focus-of-world-debate.html?_r=1scp=1sq=a%20second%20here%20a%20second%20therest=cse
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16625614
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/
North Utsire: Westerly or northwesterly, backing southerly, becoming cyclonic
later, 5 or 6. Very rough or high, becoming rough. Squally showers. Good,
occasionally poor.
On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
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
So more Bush v Gore than Dewey beats Truman.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
This email arrived a few minutes ago from a BIPM contact in Geneva.
/tvb
- Original Message -
From: @bipm.org
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: ITU leap second announcement
Dear,
The discussion has concluded. The decision is to give the opportunity to those
Consider it an opportunity to find consensus.
Stephen
On 19 January 2012 17:24, Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
So more Bush v Gore than Dewey beats Truman.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16625614
3 more years of ground-hog's day on this list. Save us from ourselves! :-)
Warner
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
On Jan 18, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
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
And it isn't geeks redefining reality to match the implementation.
I'm just pointing out that the new definition matches the
implementation.
Only if you forget about the leap seconds that have already happened.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
I'm confused - I thought there was going to be a vote, yet it seems
the British delegation have used a veto?
Peter (London, England)
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
On Thu, January 19, 2012 9:03 am, Tony Finch wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16625614
I knew it... it's enough of a hot button issue among the handful of
people who care about it that nobody wants to commit to actually taking
any action, so it will just keep bouncing around
Not so fuzzy here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/science/to-keep-or-kill-lowly-leap-second-focus-of-world-debate.html?_r=1
On 19-Jan-12, at 10:12 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/19/nytfrontpage/scan.jpg
(below the fold)
!!!
-- Richard
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bertram Arbesser-Rastburg bert...@tec-ee.esa.int
Date: January 19, 2012 12:38:05 PM AST
Subject: Leap Second
Dear colleagues,
just to let you know that the decision for abolishing the leap
second here at the ITU Radiocommunication Assembly
Richard B. Langley shared:
Dear colleagues,
just to let you know that the decision for abolishing the leap second here
at the ITU Radiocommunication Assembly has in the end not been made.
VLADIMIR:
That passed the time.
ESTRAGON:
It would have
Rob might only be one of those pesky astronomers but he is certainly
a well-rounded
one. ;-) Someone after my own heart.
-- Richard
On 19-Jan-12, at 3:22 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
Richard B. Langley shared:
Dear colleagues,
just to let you know that the decision for abolishing the leap
It seems Canada switched sides! No mention of China's stand in the
article.
-- Richard
On 19-Jan-12, at 2:51 PM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Thu, January 19, 2012 9:03 am, Tony Finch wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16625614
I knew it... it's enough of a hot button
On 2012-01-18 23:33, Tom Van Baak proposed:
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. For every one
of us there are a thousand engineers out there
So that's it for RA-12. What about WRC-12?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/leap-lives-week-15394991#.TxiOVJggIqY
Rob
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
That was AP, here's AFP:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/19/leap-second-timekeepers-put-off-decision-on-scrapping-extra-second/
They have China and Canada on the other side, no mention of revisiting this
next week. Nothing yet from Reuters. Don't know how to productively search
Godot last made an appearance in LEAPSECS in April 2006. Give us long enough
and we'll finish Act 1.
The last Godot I saw had Patrick Stewart as Vladimir and Ian McKellen as
Estragon.The perfect people to deliver Beckett, change gear, and then
affect to understand the distinction
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Consider it an opportunity to find consensus.
That is unlikely if people believe it is axiomatic that time is fundamentally
time of day and not elapsed time. These are two fundamentally opposing
views of time. And sadly they both agree
On Thu 2012/01/19 08:33:14 PDT, Rob Seaman wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List leapsecs@leapsecond.com
BTW, is there anything actually informative in the youtube video?
Yes. This is what he said:
For the first years we won't notice, but as I said before, after
a hundred
First, I can't say I'm very surprised. ITU has always had a nasty
tendency to make hard questions for further study, anyone who
have read the original OSI recommendations (X.###) will know what
I mean by that.
Second, it is insteresting and depressing that this can seem to
come as a surprise
On Thu 2012/01/19 10:06:56 PDT, Warner Losh wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List leapsecs@leapsecond.com
I'll point out that leap seconds redefined the reality that time was a
uniform radix to be a non-uniform radix was also fairly arrogant,
taking thousands of years of use and
On 19 January 2012 22:38, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Consider it an opportunity to find consensus.
That is unlikely if people believe it is axiomatic that time is
fundamentally time of day and not elapsed time. These are two
Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Consider it an opportunity to find consensus.
That is unlikely if people believe it is axiomatic that time is fundamentally
time of day and not elapsed time.
But I don't. Time is both. I believe it axiomatic that
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/03.aspx
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
On Thu 2012/01/19 15:38:15 PDT, Warner Losh wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List leapsecs@leapsecond.com
So I'm not too optimistic since all the focus has been on
'let's just junk them entirely' with little middle ground
explored.
The LEAPSECS list now has over 6000 messages by my
On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Mark Calabretta wrote:
Even now the many people who refer to UTC as a discontinuous
time scale, many of whom should be expected to know better, seem
not to be aware of it.
It is discontinuous for some definition of discontinuous. While strictly
speaking time is
Even now the many people who refer to UTC as a discontinuous
time scale, many of whom should be expected to know better, seem
not to be aware of it.
Mark Calabretta
Mark,
Welcome back to the list. It's been a while.
Here's a chance for some creative input. If as you say UTC
is not
On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
So, why not explore it. Properly. On this list.
Rob Seaman doesn't like it when I do that. He always tries to draw the
discussion back to the ITU proposal, even when I'm trying to find middle
ground. Maybe now that it has been shelved,
On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Consider it an opportunity to find consensus.
That is unlikely if people believe it is axiomatic that time is
fundamentally time of day and not elapsed time.
But
On 2012 Jan 19, at 17:41, Warner Losh wrote:
I'm surprised that nobody had the 'announce earlier' or
'phase in DUT1 1s over decades' card out of their pocket.
At this point in history predictable is a red herring. Yes, if a
scheme that involved predictable had been in place 30 years ago,
then
On Thu 2012/01/19 18:37:25 PDT, Warner Losh wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List leapsecs@leapsecond.com
It is discontinuous for some definition of discontinuous.
If UTC is discontinuous in any sense then so must the Gregorian
calendar be, with a discontinuity 86400 times greater
Le 20/01/2012 07:19, Steve Allen a écrit :
What is the goal? I don't think the ITU-R saw it today. Is the goal to
make life easier for operational systems? Is the goal to make life
easier for bureaucrats? Is the goal to preserve conceptual
definitions? Not all of those are attainable. Any way
Le 20/01/2012 07:19, Steve Allen a écrit :
What is the goal? I don't think the ITU-R saw it today.
Is the goal to make life easier for operational systems?
Is the goal to make life easier for bureaucrats?
Is the goal to preserve conceptual definitions?
Not all of those are attainable.
Sorry
On Thu 2012/01/19 20:54:52 -0800, Tom Van Baak wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List leapsecs@leapsecond.com
Welcome back to the list. It's been a while.
I have to admit to lurking, though usually take shelter during
the cyclone season, except this season was too hard to ignore
for
On 2012-01-19 23:21, Mark Calabretta wrote:
It seemed to take a long time to get TF460 right, now in its 6th
revision. And for most of the 40 years it was accessible only by
subscription - assuming that is, that you were even aware of its
existence. Is it any wonder that leap seconds may
53 matches
Mail list logo
