Brooks Harris said:
> tm_sec + tm_min*60 + tm_hour*3600 + tm_yday*86400 +
> (tm_year???70)*31536000 + ((tm_year???69)/4)*86400 ???
> ((tm_year???1)/100)*86400 + ((tm_year+299)/400)*86400
>
> This is an *uncompensated-for-leap-seconds* Gregorian calendar counting
> scheme with an artificially impo
Rob Seaman said:
> Systems, software and civilization depend on both interval time and Earth
> orientation time.
In what way does civilization depend on Earth orientation time? Given that
existing locations have local time several *hours* away from solar time,
this seems unlikely.
--
Clive D.W.
On 2014-01-18 01:14 PM, Peter Vince wrote:
Stephen Scott has just mentioned his involvement in the TV industry in
the USA, with its problematical 29.97 Hz frame-rate.
Lets not propogate the notion of a "29.97 Hz" rate, especially in the
the context of this LEAP_SECS list. "29.97" is a commonly
On 2014-01-18 09:39 AM, Zefram wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
what is stored in the cound of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
time is used only when there is a human to be humored.
Sure, scalar time_t values are used undern
Gerard Ashton said:
> A while back a list member asked about how legal rules about time would
> affect the year shown on a person's birth certificate for a person born near
> midnight December 31 / January 1.
[...]
Memory says there was a case in "Uncommon Law" (the 1935 collection of
"Misleading
On Sat 2014-01-18T22:03:03 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
> "Broken-down POSIX time" is a YY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss representation - a
> *calendar* date-time.
>
> POSIX behaves as an *uncompensated-for-Leap-Seconds* Gregorian
> calendar counting scheme.
A calendar, made up of days, which because of the l
On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should
On 2014-01-18 09:29 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Brooks,
Maybe I missed it way back in the thread, but can you give me an example why
you'd want a proleptic TAI or UTC?
I'm working on revising the names and a fuller explanation, but briefly -
The idea is to declare a 1hz timeline before 1972-01-
Brooks,
Maybe I missed it way back in the thread, but can you give me an example why
you'd want a proleptic TAI or UTC?
/tvb
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
> The problem is that all applications should care about leap seconds.
> It is a part of the time standard (UTC) that is papered over in POSIX time_t.
> This is a false partitioning, and what causes the probelms.
Warner,
"All" applications should care? It's that going a bit too far? What, are you
On Jan 18, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Steffen (Daode) Nurpmeso wrote:
>
> Those applications which do care about leap seconds can determine
> how to handle them in whatever way those applications feel is
> best.
The problem is that all applications should care about leap seconds. It is a
part of the
A while back a list member asked about how legal rules about time would
affect the year shown on a person's birth certificate for a person born near
midnight December 31 / January 1. As a volunteer emergency medical
technician, I have been trained in field childbirth. The EMS state protocol
gives n
Warner Losh wrote:
|Leap seconds are evil and must die, leaving alignment to the \
You know, i shouldn't speak up here; but what i am missing as
a C++/C/ programmer is the possibility to actually know the true
context, and work with it. I.e., clock_gettime(CLOCK_TAI) and
clock_gettime(CLOCK_UTC
On 18 January 2014 23:11, Stephen Scott wrote:
> Is there any attempt to maintain the PAL 8-field sequence when aligning
> the timestamps with clock time?
>
> Yes. The specification defines which seconds start with a "field 1",
however, the time code signal must also be accurately phased to the T
On 2014-01-18 03:07 PM, Eric R. Smith wrote:
On 2014-01-18 12:02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
[POSIX time]
...
It's defined as a transformation of a broken-down UTC timestamp, not
(despite its name) as a count of seconds since some instant.
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will dis
On 2014-01-18 08:02 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
POSIX time is defined without reference to NTP, which is its own world
with its own standard. Note that the NTP standard, RFC-1305, is dated
March 1992, which is well after the first POSIX standard (1988 - the
Ugly Green Book). Nor does NTP have any r
On 2014-01-18 16:14, Peter Vince wrote:
Stephen Scott has just mentioned his involvement in the TV industry in
the USA, with its problematical 29.97 Hz frame-rate. I also work in
the TV industry, but in the UK where we are lucky to have a nice
integer 25 Hz rate. Although historically we sti
On 2014-01-18 12:02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>> [POSIX time]
...
>> It's defined as a transformation of a broken-down UTC timestamp, not
>> (despite its name) as a count of seconds since some instant.
>
> No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
> what is stored in the c
Good to see that enthusiastic discussions continue :-) Those new to the list
might review previous threads that touch on all the recent talking points. See
under discussions near the bottom of:
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/links.html
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Poul-Henni
On Sat 2014-01-18T13:25:58 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
> LEAP_SECS list provides a unique forum for discussion.
Yet LEAPSECS is like all the recorded discussions among various
international agencies: no consensus. The folks who are determining
policy among the various national bodies that con
On 2014-01-18 03:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I think it is cute you lay all these plans, but how are you going to
sell your new timescale ?
I'm certainly not going to do that alone. It will take a concerted
effort by a lot of people with more credibility in the field than I.
I think its
Stephen Scott said:
> The basis of my understanding is that UTC is a timescale that:
> -progresses at a rate of the second (SI) and has done so since
> 1972-01-01.
> -is expressed as a count in the form of date, hours, minutes and
> seconds;
> -is continuous other than the discontinui
Stephen Scott has just mentioned his involvement in the TV industry in the
USA, with its problematical 29.97 Hz frame-rate. I also work in the TV
industry, but in the UK where we are lucky to have a nice integer 25 Hz
rate. Although historically we still had a problem with leap seconds, as
the 62
On Jan 18, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Stephen Scott wrote:
> Most recent posts have tried to disect the past. This is about the use of
> time now and in the future.
>
> UTC and Leap Seconds
> The basis of my understanding is that UTC is a timescale that:
> -progresses at a rate of the second (SI) an
Ian Batten said:
> Certainly, if Scotland
> does opt for independence (on current polling and betting it seems unlikely,
> but
> let's suppose) the pressure for England to move to CET will increase.
> There's some confusion
> as to whether the proposal would be moving the UK to UTC+1/UTC+2 as
Most recent posts have tried to disect the past. This is about the use
of time now and in the future.
_*UTC and Leap Seconds*_
The basis of my understanding is that UTC is a timescale that:
-progresses at a rate of the second (SI) and has done so since
1972-01-01.
-is expressed as a cou
On 18 Jan 2014 at 8:15, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> Universal Pictures never meant to say that they where making movies for
> other solar systems. Look at the earth they are using as symbol:
> http://www.universalpictures.com/
Did 20th Century Fox intend on making movies into the 21st century?
-
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:39:00 +, Zefram wrote:
> Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>> No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
>> what is stored is the count of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
>> time is used only when there is a human to be humored.
>
> Sure, scalar tim
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
>what is stored in the cound of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
>time is used only when there is a human to be humored.
Sure, scalar time_t values are used underneath, and I didn't say
otherwise. T
On 2014-01-18 02:09 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
There are ways to alter the definition of UTC and keeping within the
concept.
If you want a different concept, then it's a different time-scale. The
concept they are looking for already have an existing time-scale, but
naturally they are free
In message <71d95256-adee-4323-ade4-b945643ab...@batten.eu.org>, Ian Batten wri
tes:
>
>On 18 Jan 2014, at 11:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>> For instance I doubt you'll find any UK politician willing to push
>> a s/GMT/$whatever/ legislation since that will just feed the UKIP
>> trolls and be
In message <20140118161657.ga1...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>The ITU-R's only options are:
>UTC with leap seconds (status quo)
>and
>a new time scale which is continuous in value to the current
>UTC at the instant of change from old to new (no leap at
>the transition)
Says
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>>
>>> If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
>>> should not attempt to be using concep
On Jan 18, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> On 18/01/14 10:41, Brooks Harris wrote:
>> On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>>> On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>
> Let's face it, this lump of orbital debri
On 18 Jan 2014, at 11:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> For instance I doubt you'll find any UK politician willing to push
> a s/GMT/$whatever/ legislation since that will just feed the UKIP
> trolls and become a factor in the Scottish independence referendum.
I'm not sure that's true. The rea
On Sat 2014-01-18T07:18:01 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
> > Will the delegates from other nations
> > simply reject a proposal which is rooted in and strongly pushed by the
> > military needs of the USA?
>
> What's the basis of this assertion?
The admonition from USNO to its folks attendin
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:37:36 +, Zefram wrote:
> Brooks Harris wrote:
>> The whole purpose of TAI is
>> a "realization" of TT, right? TAI shields us (I mean us normal
>> computer people, not astronomers or cosmologists) from the details of
>> how TAI is m
In message <52da9966.6010...@hfx.eastlink.ca>, "Eric R. Smith" writes:
>In the rationale there is a discussion of leap seconds, including the
>charming statement:
>
>"...most systems are probably not synchronized to any standard time
>reference. Therefore, it is inappropriate to require that a tim
On 2014-01-18 10:21, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <52da845e.4000...@hfx.eastlink.ca>, "Eric R. Smith" writes:
>
>>> As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t does not do that.
>>
>> Doesn't it? If POSIX time_t were in fact a count of SI seconds since the
>> epoch then the nature of the
On 01/18/2014 09:21 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
No, in fact it doesn't, it just counts seconds, one after the other.
The reason why leapseconds is a problem is that people assume that
it *also* counts minutes, hours and days also.
Others would say that "the reason" there is a a problem is
th
In message <52da845e.4000...@hfx.eastlink.ca>, "Eric R. Smith" writes:
>> As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t does not do that.
>
>Doesn't it? If POSIX time_t were in fact a count of SI seconds since the
>epoch then the nature of the "leap second problem" would be quite
>different. time_t
On 2014-01-18 06:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>
>> If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
>> should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
>> days, weeks, months,
In message <52da8247.70...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>but about what "Universal" in UTC actually means.
What it *meant*.
That may not be the same thing people mean these days, when they
plunk down robots on different pieces of orbital debris.
Remember: Standards should be
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
days, weeks, months, years [...]
Brooks Harris wrote:
> The whole purpose of TAI is
>a "realization" of TT, right? TAI shields us (I mean us normal
>computer people, not astronomers or cosmologists) from the details of
>how TAI is maintained
TAI does not shield you from the lack of atomic
I think it is cute you lay all these plans, but how are you going to
sell your new timescale ?
How will you get EU to change UTC to $whatever in all their regulations ?
If you can honestly tell them "It's just a renaming, there is no semantic
difference", you *might* be able to persuade them to
Brooks Harris wrote:
>The best I'd thought of so far was "Proleptic TAI" and "Proleptic
>UTC", but I agree those concepts along that portion of the timescale
>may want their own names.
If those columns of the table refer to your proleptic extensions of
these time scales, then in principle it's val
In message <52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson writes:
>If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
>should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
>days, weeks, months, years [...]
As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t
On 18/01/14 10:41, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have com
On 2014-01-18 01:33 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes, its new. Well, actually, NTP already defined something like it,
but here I'm trying to make it also encompass POSIX "the Epoch" and
1588/PTP's "epoch" - "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z".
Opps. Typo!
I meant 1588/PTP's "epoch" - 1970-01-01 00:00:00 (TA
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our "unive
On 2014-01-17 05:08 PM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
The idea behind "CCT" is to better define "civil time".
That seems only vaguely related to your more clearly stated objectives
of proleptic versions of TAI and modern UTC. It's too late to better
define pre-1972 civil time, and prolept
On 18 Jan 2014, at 07:18, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>
> Removing future leap seconds won't change the legal definition of the word
> "day" anywhere. What it does mean is that, in countries using "UTC" as part
> of the legal definition, the centre of the night will drift away from 00:00
> before
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our "universe".
The "universe" is a little larger than t
On 16/01/14 12:38, Tom Van Baak wrote:
The Multics clock design (a fixed bin (71), ie double word, representing
microseconds
since 00:00 01-01-1900) clearly informs the Unix one.
Was it 1900 or 1901? See:
http://www.multicians.org/jhs-clock.html
http://web.mit.edu/multics-history/source/Multic
55 matches
Mail list logo
