Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> I can safely say from my experience there, that if leap seconds are
> abolished it will not be with the British peoples approval.
I got the impression from the emphasis on non-technical aspects that the
consultation was designed to get that answer. It's easy to persu
On 30 September 2014 11:43, Tony Finch wrote:
> Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>
>> I can safely say from my experience there, that if leap seconds are
>> abolished it will not be with the British peoples approval.
>
> I got the impression from the emphasis on non-technical aspects that the
> consult
Tony Finch wrote:
> And I seem to remember from reading the materials that they also ignored
> the cultural damage that was done by the introduction of leap seconds in
> the first place, breaking a multi-thousand-year tradition of base 60
> fractions, making all mechanical clocks obsolete, and so
As a social scientist who watched the British process from the outside, I
had some concerns about it. In particular, I was bothered by Minister
Willets announcing his feelings and THEN hiring the outside consulting
group to write a report.
Social and cultural dimensions do matter, but if research
Sorry, but I disagree with Tony Finch. The time period from June 30, 2012,
7:59:60 to June 30, 2012, 8:00:00, Eastern Daylight Time, did occur in the
United States and any end user requiring such precision was legally obliged
to observe it.
-Original Message-
From: LEAPSECS [mailto:leapsec
On Sep 30, 2014, at 8:27 AM, Michael Spacefalcon
wrote:
> Tony Finch wrote:
>
>> And I seem to remember from reading the materials that they also ignored
>> the cultural damage that was done by the introduction of leap seconds in
>> the first place, breaking a multi-thousand-year tradition of
On Sep 30, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Kevin Birth wrote:
> I would love there to be more sound social scientific research on this
> topic, but most social scientists who study time do not even know that
> this debate is happening, and with slow publishing cycles, by the time the
> researchers who are work
> So you are saying that the UTC standard is so broken that you have to invent
> your own, which is not standardized by any standards body[*], to get around
> it? UTC is the required time base for business and has some odd quirks which
> mean that to comply with it you have to be an expert on the
I think lots of contracts for the use of computers where time matters, such
as online auction sites, contain language that the parties agree to use the
time as maintained on a particular computer system, such as the electronic
auction site's computers.
-Original Message-
From: LEAPSECS [ma
Hal Murray said:
> How many contracts worry about seconds?
Ones to deal with electronic trading, domain name registration, and such
topics.
> I think it's common for contracts to start one minute before or after
> midnight to avoid an English language ambiguity. Things like "midnight
> Monday"
Television, cable, and internet advertising. In broadcast (including
cable) the contracts are in video frames, in the North America and other
NTSC standards countries this is on the order of +- 1/30th second (with
some small variance for technical error). Lots and lots of commercials,
lots an
The problem is that many contracts don’t directly specify UTC, so it
defaults to whatever the legal time is for that jurisdiction happens to be,
or is believed to be by the courts (UTC traceable to NIST was the only
accepted mean solar time for years not due to law, but due to regulations
and the i
On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:46 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> But the basic point still remains: If you have to sugar coat the actual
> standard
> with a fake standard to paper-over people’s inability to deal with the actual
> standard, this suggests that you have the wrong actual standard.
No, the basic p
On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:46 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>> But the basic point still remains: If you have to sugar coat the actual
>> standard
>> with a fake standard to paper-over people’s inability to deal with the actual
>> standard, this suggests
On Tue 2014-09-30T10:29:26 -0600, Warner Losh hath writ:
> So you are saying that the UTC standard is so broken that you have to
> invent your own, which is not standardized by any standards body[*],
Yes.
That's what GPS did.
That's what POSIX did.
That's what IEEE 1588 did.
That's what BeiDou di
15 matches
Mail list logo
