In message <32c69001-db69-46c4-905f-d994b017b...@tcs.wap.org>, "Jonathan E.
Hardis" writes:
>That box of Wheaties that is labelled 'Net Weight 10 oz' would
>correctly weigh 10 oz everywhere on Earth, on the Moon, and on the ISS.
It does not.
For several reasons, but mainly because t
In message <05e65caf-d064-4d4e-aa16-195fe7d15...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>On the other hand, the one thing we can be sure about POSIX is
>that it will ultimately have a finite lifespan. But a day on Earth
>(and on Mars and Pluto) will always be a synodic (mean solar) day,
>whatever
On May 19, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Joseph M Gwinn wrote:
> In short, POSIX systems have to be able to work in a cave, with no access to
> the sky or knowledge of astronomy.
If the cave has access to NTP it has access to the IERS.
And astronomy happens underground as well:
http://www.atlasob
> On May 19, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
>
> It was around the late 1600's that it started becomming possible (and
> necessary) to decouple weight and mass.
The sound you hear is the sound of chalk screeching on the blackboard.
“Weight” is an ambiguous term that can either mean “for
"LEAPSECS" wrote on 05/19/2015 05:49:23
PM:
> From: "Eric R. Smith"
> To: Leap Second Discussion List
> Date: 05/19/2015 06:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Look Before You Leap ? The Coming Leap
> Second and AWS | Hacker News
> Sent by: "LEAPSECS"
>
> On 19/05/15 05:39 PM, Joseph M Gwinn w
On 05/19/2015 12:05 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
One has to wonder, though. UTC is the standard. Why do we need another
standard to subvert the original standard if the original standard were easy
to implement correctly?
Because POSIX requires you to pretend leap seconds don't exit.
__
On 19/05/15 05:39 PM, Joseph M Gwinn wrote:
>> From: "Poul-Henning Kamp"
>> To: Leap Second Discussion List , Hal
>> Murray
>> Date: 05/19/2015 02:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Look Before You Leap ? The Coming Leap
>> Second and AWS | Hacker News
>> Sent by: "LEAPSECS"
>>
>>
>> In m
"LEAPSECS" wrote on 05/19/2015 02:22:24
PM:
> From: "Poul-Henning Kamp"
> To: Leap Second Discussion List , Hal
> Murray
> Date: 05/19/2015 02:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Look Before You Leap ? The Coming Leap
> Second and AWS | Hacker News
> Sent by: "LEAPSECS"
>
>
> In messa
Several years ago (2000ish) I came across a website arguing why the US
is right to not adopt the metric system. (I suspect the author had never
heard the term "SI") One of its examples of how the "metric system" is
bad was its confusing use of two units, the newton and the kilogram, to
measure wei
In message <20150519181135.cacbe406...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>, Hal
Murray writes:
>I think the problem is conflicting standards. POSIX doesn't agree with UTC.
Not so much "doesn't agree" as "ignores".
>Are there any examples of buggy standards with a huge installed base gett
Warner Losh said:
> One has to wonder, though. UTC is the standard. Why do we need another
> standard to subvert the original standard if the original standard were easy
> to implement correctly? Surely the existence of these ?smeared? timescales
> points to a fundamental flaw in the method we?ve
Standards are funny things. Sometimes they get adopted and sometimes
they don't. Sometimes more than one standard becomes the standard.
The leap seconds debate exists because there are two entirely
reasonable ways to talk about time, one based on the sun and one based
on atomic clocks. The solar f
In message <0e448a0c-f75a-43a0-9fb6-7d715ef92...@bsdimp.com>, Warner Losh
writes:
>Surely the existence of these 'smeared' timescales
>points to a fundamental flaw in the method we've chosen to keep atomic
>and solar time in sync?
Speaking of "flawed"...
Reported to me from the hall-wa
One has to wonder, though. UTC is the standard. Why do we need another
standard to subvert the original standard if the original standard were easy
to implement correctly? Surely the existence of these ‘smeared’ timescales
points to a fundamental flaw in the method we’ve chosen to keep atomic
and s
On 2015-05-19 08:10, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
A key point I've been making all along is that there needs to be an
internationally agreed standard for how to do the smoothing. In Java I
recommended UTC-SLS simply because it was at least a written up
approach. (My preference is for a linear ch
A key point I've been making all along is that there needs to be an
internationally agreed standard for how to do the smoothing. In Java I
recommended UTC-SLS simply because it was at least a written up
approach. (My preference is for a linear change because there is less
chance of implementors get
16 matches
Mail list logo
