Warner Losh wrote:
>
> No. The basic point is that people are ignoring the standard because it
> is hard to implement.
Given the perpetual arguments on this list, I am not surprised by the
reaction of the people participating in the UK consultation: techies
should buckle down and implement it pro
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> This approach would satisfy all parties: humans can continue to enjoy the
cultural achievement of a clock that exactly describes their home planet,
and engineers can use TAI for satisfying airplane schedule calculations for
businessmen.
"Businessmen" can keep whatever ti
|Warner Losh wrote:
|>
|> No. The basic point is that people are ignoring the standard because it
|> is hard to implement.
|
|Given the perpetual arguments on this list, I am not surprised by the
|reaction of the people participating in the UK consultation: techies
|should buckle down and
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.
I would agree that we have the wrong actual standard. We've had leap
sec
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>
> This approach would satisfy all parties: humans can continue to
> enjoy the cultural achievement of a clock that exactly describes
> their home planet, and engineers can use TAI for satisfying
> airplane schedule calculations for businessmen.
No. Planning for human eve
For most of human history there were no global time standards. In Europe,
many city states had their own distinctive times--Nuremberg Time, Italian
Time, Bohemian Time . . .
The first wave of global standards were implemented by colonialism and
empire.
Implementing global standards without the
On 1 October 2014 13:02, Greg Hennessy 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.
>
> I would a
On Oct 1, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Greg Hennessy 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.
>
> I wou
"Gerard Ashton" wrote:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|
|> This approach would satisfy all parties: humans can continue to enjoy the
|cultural achievement of a clock that exactly describes their home planet,
|and engineers can use TAI for satisfying airplane schedule calculations for
|businessmen.
Gerard Ashton said:
> "Businessmen" can keep whatever time they like for internal use, but
> whenever a businessman communicates with a customer or another business, the
> courts will interpret any times stated as being the legal time of the
> applicable jurisdiction, although in many cases the bus
Tony Finch wrote:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> their home planet, and engineers can use TAI for satisfying
|> airplane schedule calculations for businessmen.
|
|No. Planning for human events in the future needs to be based on the local
|time in a particular place. http://fanf.livejournal.co
Kevin Birth wrote:
> For most of human history there were no global time standards. In Europe,
> many city states had their own distinctive times--Nuremberg Time, Italian
> Time, Bohemian Time . . .
But before there were standard times there were standard representations
of time, e.g. the 12/24
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>
> I cannot imagine you wouldn't agree that having CLOCK_TAI (and
> CLOCK_LEAPDRIFT) make things easier.
For most purposes we need civil time, and a TAI clock doesn't solve the
problem that civil time is too difficult to get right.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://d
On Oct 1, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>>
>> I cannot imagine you wouldn't agree that having CLOCK_TAI (and
>> CLOCK_LEAPDRIFT) make things easier.
>
> For most purposes we need civil time, and a TAI clock doesn't solve the
> problem that civil time is too di
The 12/24 clock was only "standard" in England and France. Nuremberg
hours (separate counts for daytime and nighttime) lasted until 1811,
Italian hours (1-24 beginning at evening twilight) until the 1860s,
Japanese time until 1873. I don't know when Bohemian hours were done away
with. Some parts
> (Nonetheless i repeat that having TAI plus the current LEAPDRIFT at hand
> would ease date and time calculation algorithms, and also that i don't
> understand why the existing information is thrown away instead of being
> delivered along with the UTC information over NTP.)
The leap offset data
On 1 October 2014 21:19, Hal Murray wrote:
>
> The leap offset data doesn't change very often. Why should it be
distributed
> via NTP rather than with the time-zone database or something similar?
Why have to have two places to go for the information, when a single data
stream could convey everyt
On 2014-10-01 12:18 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Oct 1, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
I cannot imagine you wouldn't agree that having CLOCK_TAI (and
CLOCK_LEAPDRIFT) make things easier.
For most purposes we need civil time, and a TAI clock doesn't solve the
probl
On 1 Oct 2014, at 14:33, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> Abolishing leap seconds is another approach, but it works by putting a
> head in the sand and ignoring the underlying tension with solar days.
> And my big fear is that some more religiously minded countries might
> choose to carry on using
On 30 Sep 2014, at 15:05, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> There was also incredulity that the smart people who they rely on to
> run complex machines like atomic clocks can't manage to get every NTP
> server in the world to send out the same piece of information that
> actually tells everyone it
On 10/01/2014 09:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
We also need
- a clear smoothing/smearing standard, mapping from UTC (with leap
seconds) to smoothed-UTC (86400 secs per day, no leap seconds). This
could be UTC-SLS, Google smear or something else, so long as there is
a clear well-defined sta
On 10/01/2014 10:32 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On the other hand, the POSIX standard is easy to implement and generally
hard to get wrong.
I can't say I agree with the last half of that statement. I've seen
plenty of times people got POSIX wrong.
___
On 1 October 2014 21:19, Hal Murray wrote:
> The leap offset data doesn't change very often. Why should it be distributed
> via NTP rather than with the time-zone database or something similar?
Because NTP already has support for it, and the data received by NTP
is then clear and complete.
Step
On 2 October 2014 00:00, Greg Hennessy wrote:
> On 10/01/2014 09:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> We also need
>> - a clear smoothing/smearing standard, mapping from UTC (with leap
>> seconds) to smoothed-UTC (86400 secs per day, no leap seconds). This
>> could be UTC-SLS, Google smear or somet
In message
, Stephen Colebourne writes:
>On 1 October 2014 21:19, Hal Murray wrote:
>> The leap offset data doesn't change very often. Why should it be distributed
>> via NTP rather than with the time-zone database or something similar?
>
>Because NTP already has support for it, and the
25 matches
Mail list logo
