Re: [LEAPSECS] next leap second

2017-01-12 Thread Steve Allen
On Thu 2017-01-12T12:57:55 -0500, John Sauter hath writ: > Keep in mind that the IERS may have > improved their algorithm since 1972, so we may be looking at a moving > target. Yes. Everything is entirely different. Things that have changed and continue to change include sites and organizations

Re: [LEAPSECS] next leap second

2017-01-12 Thread Brooks Harris
IERS Technical Note No. 36 IERS Conventions (2010) ftp://tai.bipm.org/iers/conv2010/tn36.pdf -Brooks On 2017-01-12 01:08 PM, Brooks Harris wrote: On 2017-01-12 12:18 PM, Michael Shields via LEAPSECS wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Warner Losh wrote: On Wed, Jan 11,

Re: [LEAPSECS] next leap second

2017-01-12 Thread John Sauter
On Thu, 2017-01-12 at 09:18 -0800, Michael Shields via LEAPSECS wrote: > It might also be helpful if we understood better how these models are > used to decide when to announce leap seconds.  I don't know currently > what criteria the IERS uses, except the overall parameters of keeping > >

Re: [LEAPSECS] next leap second

2017-01-12 Thread Brooks Harris
On 2017-01-12 12:18 PM, Michael Shields via LEAPSECS wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Warner Losh wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Zefram wrote: It would be nice to have more sophisticated projections from IERS more than a year ahead. It would

Re: [LEAPSECS] next leap second

2017-01-12 Thread Michael Shields via LEAPSECS
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Zefram wrote: >> It would be nice to have more sophisticated projections from IERS more >> than a year ahead. It would particularly help in evaluating the proposals >> that

Re: [LEAPSECS] alternative to smearing

2017-01-12 Thread Warner Losh
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: > Preben Nrager said: >> If you don't care about Christ, and the church, I can understand why you >> treat all timescales alike. But if you really care about the fundamental >> timescale of science and society, then I

Re: [LEAPSECS] alternative to smearing

2017-01-12 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Preben Nrager said: > If you don't care about Christ, and the church, I can understand why you > treat all timescales alike. But if you really care about the fundamental > timescale of science and society, then I don't see how you can ignore the > time of the incarnation. If you really want the

Re: [LEAPSECS] alternative to smearing

2017-01-12 Thread Rob Seaman
This is getting pretty far afield from the question of Coordinated Universal Time or leap seconds. Perhaps there is a more appropriate mailing list for such discussions? Rob Seaman Lunar and Planetary Laboratory University of Arizona — > On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Preben Nørager

Re: [LEAPSECS] alternative to smearing

2017-01-12 Thread Preben Nørager
Zefram wrote: "The birthdate of Jesus is a historical question, and (as I noted) historians are pretty sure that AD 0 isn't the answer. ISO 8601 takes no position on that question. .. If you get any more specific than he [Dionysius Exiguus] did, for example if you state that Jesus was born