In message , Rob Seaman writes:
> Tell it to the folks who think they can hide the Sun in the cracks
> between the timezones.
You mean all the chinese people living up several hours away from
mean solar time, because all of China is a single time-zone ?
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNI
On May 20, 2015, at 11:27 AM, G Ashton wrote:
> I think calendars count observed day/night cycles.
They are not arbitrary day/night cycles. What has been observed is Earth has a
sidereal rotation period; during its annual lap around the Sun one of those
rotations is unwrapped. Hence the sola
I'm absolutely certain that POSIX will survive much longer than the
current definition of UTC.
--
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 ade
Rob Seaman wrote, in part, on 20 May 2015 11:27 AM
>On the other hand the thing that calendars count are mean solar days. It is
>precisely the “mean” part that permits calendars to sail unconcerned over
>daylight saving time adjustments and to ignore the red herring of the equation
>of time.
On May 19, 2015, at 10:46 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 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 P
In message <05704fac-8087-42ca-bb03-51c4b21c6...@tcs.wap.org>, "Jonathan E. Har
dis " writes:
>I stand by my original statement. The label on the box is a mass specificati=
>on, not a force specification. See the reference provided.
I didn't say the label didn't describe a mass, I said
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Richard Clark wrote:
> 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 weight. The US system is so much simpler and sensible with just
> one unit, the pound.
>
I am not sure of
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
> The rationale is that by the time we get to 2038, all platforms will
> have changed time_t to a 64-bit integer, deferring the problem for tens
> of billions of years, by which time POSIX will be in museums, laughed
> at by bored children. Th
On Tue, 19 May 2015 22:02:18 -0700, Rob Seaman wrote:
> 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.
Not ne
I stand by my original statement. The label on the box is a mass specification,
not a force specification. See the reference provided.
If you want to pick at the statement you would have to resort to relativity, in
which case I would correct to "rest mass."
Sent from my iPad
> On May 20, 2015
10 matches
Mail list logo
