I was talking about this to a colleague, and they pointed out an obvious point
that perhaps those of us who follow these things might miss.
Between now and 2023 there will be at least two leap seconds, to a high degree
of probability. With there now being a lot of focus on leap seconds and
On 5 Feb 2015, at 14:09, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
I think the dialog shows one thing clearly: The UK's historical
zero offset from UTC has made it very hard for them to generalize
that this is not a law of nature.
It is certainly clear that very few
On 6 Feb 2015, at 02:18, Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
Many aspects of local time or civil time are left to common
practice which is not good enough to expect uniform inter-operable
implementations.
Brooks, can you give some examples?
An obvious example is the UK. Our legal
On 9 Feb 2015, at 12:43, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Ian Batten via LEAPSECS leapsecs@leapsecond.com wrote:
An obvious example is the UK. Our legal time is GMT with DST, usually taken
to be
UT1 with DST. Our de facto civil time is UTC with DST, and over the years
this
has
On 30 Jan 2015, at 10:34, Hal Murray hmur...@megapathdsl.net wrote:
So, let us suppose the year 2600 is when the drift reaches the annoying
point, and let us suppose the EU is still in existence. By then the sun will
reach its highest point at about 12:45 UTC. So at this point the EU
On 6 Nov 2014, at 14:37, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
In message
CAHZk5WfKSLMy77HK1Vsvk9PQ5v=tpb0rzuri8j4kmcezooa...@mail.gmail.com
, Sanjeev Gupta writes:
Note that seconds are also a unit of angles, so UT1 seconds being a
measure of angle is not strange.
On 28 Oct 2014, at 00:46, Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
Their actions should aspire to agree with physical reality.
Anything which alludes (whether intentionally or unintentionally) to Feynman's
magisterial dissection of the Shuttle programme is OK by me!
For a successful
On 17 Oct 2014, at 14:33, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
On Thu 2014-10-16T17:07:02 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
Nothing would be renamed. Nothing would
On 1 Oct 2014, at 14:33, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org 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
On 30 Sep 2014, at 15:05, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org 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
On 21 Aug 2014, at 08:06, Clive D.W. Feather cl...@davros.org wrote:
Warner Losh said:
Absolutely. We get leap days right because we don?t have to hear from the
pope?s astronomers every year to know if it will be a leap year or not. We
know for thousands of years.
And note that it was
On 13 Jun 2014, at 16:28, Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
2014-07-05: Birmingham and Cardiff
https://twitter.com/LeapSecondsUK/status/476691895469748225
I've signed up for that (it's actually in Tamworth, which is stretching the
definition
of Birmingham to breaking point).
I'd be happy
On 12 Feb 2014, at 22:22, Clive D.W. Feather cl...@davros.org wrote:
Ian Batten said:
The easternmost point of the London district of Greenwich is a the
intersection of two roads, Maze Hill and Charlton Way. The coordinates are
51° 28.509' N, 0° 0.602' E
I'm not sure what you're using
On 10 Feb 2014, at 18:42, Gerard Ashton ashto...@comcast.net wrote:
in about three years. At such time, any correct attempt to explain what GMT
means, when used as a synonym for UTC, should mention it has nothing to do
with Greenwich.
Easy: redefine Greenwich.
Estate agents have already
On 5 Feb 2014, at 23:50, Richard Clark rcl...@noao.edu wrote:
I'm surprised that someone on the list hasn't already pointed this out.
Today February 5 2014 (already yesterday in much of the world) marks
the 90th anniversary of the BBC's time pips as we know them.
All the coverage again
On 19 Jan 2014, at 09:58, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
In message 002d01cf14bc$12a03490$37e09db0$@comcast.net, Gerard Ashton
write
s:
The time of birth
would be the actual time of birth, but the time zone (and hence date) would
be that of the location of the conveyance
On 18 Jan 2014, at 07:18, Clive D.W. Feather cl...@davros.org wrote:
Removing future leap seconds won't change the legal definition of the word
day anywhere. What it does mean is that, in countries using UTC as part
of the legal definition, the centre of the night will drift away from 00:00
On 18 Jan 2014, at 11:28, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
For instance I doubt you'll find any UK politician willing to push
a s/GMT/$whatever/ legislation since that will just feed the UKIP
trolls and become a factor in the Scottish independence referendum.
I'm not sure that's
On 18 Jan 2014, at 01:22, Zefram zef...@fysh.org wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes, I understand that. Perhaps using the word origin was careless.
Maybe you can suggest a better term.
proleptic. You may usefully add with astronomical year numbering to
make clear that zero and negative year
On 14 Jan 2014, at 23:53, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
It's not like Ken Dennis looked at leap-seconds and went Naah,
who cares, or even braindead! We'll skip that.
I think it would require slightly more software archaeology to determine who
took what decisions about what.
On 16 Jan 2014, at 09:33, Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
This notion leaves open the question of the name UTC. In particular,
can the delegates to the ITU-R RA be persuaded to vote for a new
version of TF.460 if they are aware that the new wording will change
the legal definition
On 16 Jan 2014, at 15:03, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
I think the answer for 1970-1990 is that most of them were aligned to local
time (even if the system ticked in virtual UTC/GMT time) with sub-minute
accuracy. Time alignment started to matter as more computers were networked
On 12 Oct 2013, at 06:43, Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
who would have thought the ITU had a presence on wordpress?
http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/time-to-leave-leap-seconds-behind/
I wonder if the presence of leap seconds explains why the SSL Certificate on
itunews.itu.int
On 13 Sep 2013, at 14:57, Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
In stark contrast to the usual ITU-R pattern and the previous workshop
held by BIPM at the Royal Society, the presentations for next week's
workshop in Geneva are being published
http://www.itu.int/oth/R0A0E96/en
As Mike
On 14 Sep 2013, at 16:20, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
In message d109bc3d-680e-4514-b500-14721f964...@batten.eu.org, Ian Batten
wri
tes:
On 13 Sep 2013, at 14:57, Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
In stark contrast to the usual ITU-R pattern and the previous workshop
On 6 Mar 2012, at 08:56, Warner Losh wrote:
On Mar 6, 2012, at 12:41 AM, mike cook wrote:
Le 06/03/2012 03:42, Steve Allen a écrit :
Note with great amusement that radio regulation 2.5 defines the
concept of UTC date using terminology directly derived from the
rotation of the earth.
On 24 Feb 2012, at 16:41, Steve Allen wrote:
According to Emperor, Pope, and Parliament years divisible by 4 are to
be bissextile. Today is the second sixth day before the end of
February, so today is leap day. I expect it is hard to find any
software which implements this as specified in
On 21 Jan 2012, at 23:42, Tony Finch wrote:
On 21 Jan 2012, at 18:53, Ian Batten i...@batten.eu.org wrote:
allow DUT1 to grow to 31 minutes, and then allow anyone who wants to reduce
DUT1 to 29 minutes to change their time zone
No that isn't how it works. DUT1 is the difference between
IMO it is the lack of a consistently written and fair set of options and
their implications that is holding the debate back in the ITU and elsewhere.
Perhaps so, but the claim that absorbing an increase in timezone changes (ie,
allow DUT1 to grow to 31 minutes, and then allow anyone who
On 20 Jan 2012, at 20:51, Rob Seaman wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
if the people in a country or region don't like the alignment between their
clocks and the sun, they can use their political processes to change their
timezone offset and/or DST rules.
But Jacob Rees-Mogg's suggestion
(I would note that the implications of this approach appear to mean
that the +01:00 of Paris today, would eventually become +02:00, then
+03:00 and so on to +infinity. A fairly written document would note
that as being the case and indicate when in the future it would be a
problem.)
So
On 20 Jan 2012, at 15:36, Rob Seaman wrote:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The only game changer I can spot, is if Daniel Gambis starts to announce
leapseconds 30 months in advance with stated intention to get it up to five
years, as soon as the science supports DUT11s.
'Daniel Gambis said
Godot last made an appearance in LEAPSECS in April 2006. Give us long enough
and we'll finish Act 1.
The last Godot I saw had Patrick Stewart as Vladimir and Ian McKellen as
Estragon.The perfect people to deliver Beckett, change gear, and then
affect to understand the distinction
On 18 Jan 2012, at 0805, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
I am aware of case law where a difference of 8 seconds between clocks was
relevant. That's the shortest interval I've seen so far in my searches.
And that's between clocks, not between a clock and some abstract reference. If
MSF, GPS user
On 17 Jan 2012, at 0739, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Ah, if name changes are allowed, then here's a solution:
Rename UTC to UTD
-- That's D for slightly drifting, the kind of timescale
that astronomers need, the one with leap seconds so
that it very closely follows UT1 but counts at an SI rate.
On 18 Jan 2012, at 0421, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
And why are those legal issues more significant than the ones that
will arise with respect to other laws, treaties, regulations,
standards documents, etc., that specify GMT or some other form of
solar time, once a redefined UTC (or
On 16 Jan 2012, at 1939, Steve Allen wrote:
As indicated earlier, ISO Technical Committee 37 produced a statement
about changing the terminology of UTC. Copies are posted at
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/ISOTC37toITURA.pdf
and also on the futureofutc.org website.
I'm normally quick
On 16 Jan 2012, at 2038, Nero Imhard wrote:
On 2012-01-16, at 21:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
It would require a lot of editorial work in a LOT of international documents
So what's new? Doing things right is always harder.
Using it's too hard as an argument is a copout.
But at least you
On 12 Jan 2012, at 0232, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
If we had a leap second every other week we'd have gotten so
much real life practice that depending on the code and procedures
to handle the leap wouldn't seem so scary.
It would mean that everything that relies on interval timing would
On 12 Jan 2012, at 1205, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
This would
require a system including more than six leap minutes added at one
time in order for a clock to ever have this reading.
I suspect Santorum would regard leap seconds as unbiblical.
ian
On 10 Jan 2012, at 1528, Tony Finch wrote:
Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
Warner Losh wrote:
It is only one possible definition, not the only one. That makes it a
belief, not a mathematical identity.
Alternate definition?
It used to be local apparent solar time. Then local mean
On 9 Jan 2012, at 13:24, Rob Seaman wrote:
I
Redefining UTC will break things immediately in astronomy and aerospace and
related applications. And it will break things at unpredictable intervals
over the decades and centuries to come.
And you accuse others of erecting straw men? Are
On 9 Jan 2012, at 16:32, Gerard Ashton wrote:
On 1/9/2012 10:55 AM, Ian Batten wrote:
pace all the bizarre claims about bear hunting
There are a number of laws and rules related to sunset and sunrise, including
hunting, turning headlights on
in automobiles, and being present in parks
On 9 Jan 2012, at 16:21, Warner Losh wrote:
It breaks earth-facing applications and nothing else. No examples have been
given of what it breaks apart from that.
More specifically, it breaks a subset of earth-facing applications which rely
on UTC, by name, and have no means to apply any
3) There is an assumption - without benefit of any documentation whatsoever -
that timezone adjustments can indeed serve this stated purpose. If this is
obvious (I don't find it such), then it should be easy to write a description
of how this would work.
a) Please address the
On 10 Jan 2012, at 0023, Rob Seaman wrote:
A day for civil timekeeping purposes is a mean solar day.
Clearly a day which consists of 86400 SI seconds isn't a mean solar day over
any extended period of time.One of 86400 or SI or a day runs from mean
noon to mean noon has to go at some
On 10 Jan 2012, at 0541, Rob Seaman wrote:
And yet many arguments here have proceeded from the observation that
civilians rely on complex modern infrastructure.
That's a geek argument, if I might make so bold. Just because A relies on B
doesn't mean that the consumers of A have any
On 5 Jan 2012, at 23:49, Rob Seaman wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
I reckon the timezone fudge is workable for rate errors as large as 1e-5,
which would imply a timezone change every 11 years.
More speculation along these lines: http://fanf.livejournal.com/116480.html
And I have reckoned
On 6 Jan 2012, at 2021, Richard Clark wrote:
But this would take place essentially everywhere every decade or so,
and on a fairly piecemeal basis.
An hour a decade is 360 seconds per year. Could you outline how leap seconds
would be used to slew clocks by six minutes per year?
ian
On 5 Jan 2012, at 07:53, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Ian Batten said:
Given there's some ambiguity about leap-year rules out into the far future
anyway,
There is? Both the Papal bull and UK legislation look clear enough to me.
Sorry, that was mis-phrased. I mean there's some debate, I
On 4 Jan 2012, at 19:58, Warner Losh wrote:
Do people have a notion how we'll recon time when the accumulated delta
becomes large (like on the order of 100k seconds)? UTC+27?
I think there's a certain degree of hubris involved in any discussion in which
you attempt to solve problems that
On 1 Jan 2012, at 0024, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 1112311843.aa15...@ivan.harhan.org, Michael Sokolov writes:
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ask_Bj=F8rn_Hansen?= a...@develooper.com wrote:
LEGAL things would break. What the people like you fail to grok is
that some of us are bound by
On 29 Dec 2011, at 03:53, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 28 Dec 2011 at 13:46, Paul J. Ste. Marie wrote:
Naw, just get a papal bull and wait a few centuries for the holdouts to
change over. Russia held out until 1917 if memory serves.
Oh, there's plenty of bull involved in that proposal,
On 18 Nov 2011, at 16:48, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Paul J. Ste. Marie said:
Hmm. In the UK the working timetable (not the public one) is written to a
precision of half a minute.
This wasn't the timetable. Its main purpose, as I understood it, was to
provide a record of where trains were,
On 20 Nov 2011, at 1138, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 4528db27-ce6e-4d72-84b3-72d3ef210...@batten.eu.org, Ian Batten
wri
tes:
Anyway, the average freight train in the USA is 6500 feet long (ie
substantially over a mile) and travels at an average of around
20mph, or at most 30mph
On 17 Nov 2011, at 21:53, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Paul J. Ste. Marie said:
The dispatchers and tower operators at the time had
huge paper sheets and the time each train passed a waypoint on the track
was logged. I don't remember if it was to the second on the paper forms,
but I
On 6 Oct 2011, at 2252, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Warner Losh said:
The merits of the case seem weak to me, since database do not have copyright
protection.
Actually, they do.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/prot-databases/prot-databases_en.htm
ian
On 30 Sep 2011, at 1532, Peter Vince wrote:
If they were using stand-alone caesium clocks, then yes - gravity and
altitude would make big difference. But they locked their clocks to a
single common-view GPS satellite - surely, then, they were both
ticking at the same rate, and in sync?
If
Another way to state the underlying requirement is that calendars count
integral days. Points awarded for anybody who can make this work for some
definition of day that does not remain stationary with respect to mean solar
time.
It doesn't currently remain stationary with respect to
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enq=%22hunting+season%22btnG=Searchas_sdt=4%2C46as_ylo=as_vis=0
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enq=hunting+season+timebtnG=Searchas_sdt=4%2C46as_ylo=as_vis=0
hunting sunrise, hunting sunset, hunting daylight and hunting night all return
zero hits.
On 19 Sep 2011, at 1446, Rob Seaman wrote:
If you don't believe that civil time is time-of-day where day means
synodic day, then assert an alternate definition for what the word day
means. Then we can debate the two alternatives head-to-head independent of
the complexity of how
Let's see…1 ppm is 0.0864 seconds per day. That is a leap second (or
equivalent drift) every 11.57 days. A leap hour (presuming such is
implementable) every 114 years. Is this acceptable? Says who? What process
should be followed?
Exactly the same process that the UK followed on
So let's say consensus is reached on 1 ppm, or maybe 10 ppm or 0.1 ppm. What
is this tolerance measured against? Right! Time-of-day = mean solar time.
What is LOD in all those plots? Requirements describe the problem space.
Mean solar time is a requirement. 1 ppm would be a
On 20 Sep 2011, at 16:51, Gerard Ashton wrote:
On 9/20/2011 11:24 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message4e78aa49.5060...@comcast.net, Gerard Ashton writes:
On 9/20/2011 5:53 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Earth orientation is one factor in the time of sunrise and sunset, and
that is
On 20 Sep 2011, at 1808, Steve Allen wrote:
On Tue 2011-09-20T17:50:05 +0100, Ian Batten hath writ:
You cannot imagine how little most people care about the magnitude
of DUT1 in five hundred years' time.
That was the attitude of factories about dumping mercury into the Rhine.
It turned
On 20 Sep 2011, at 2011, Doug Calvert wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Ian Batten i...@batten.eu.org wrote:
Civil time changes by an hour every six months. The idea that timezones
will have
to change by an hour in a thousand years' time isn't going to frighten
anyone.
I
On 20 Sep 2011, at 21:14, Doug Calvert wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Ian Batten i...@batten.eu.org wrote:
On 20 Sep 2011, at 2011, Doug Calvert wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Ian Batten i...@batten.eu.org wrote:
Civil time changes by an hour every six months. The idea
On 20 Sep 2011, at 2221, Gerard Ashton wrote:
but the details of the case, such as
how many minutes elapsed from the close of legal hunting hours to the time of
the offense could be contained
on a tape recording of the trial, perhaps never having been put in text form.
It seems unlikely
Might work in the USofA but in the UK not so. When the UK converted to metric
weights, large numbers of shop owners were convicted and fined for selling
goods on a non existent weight scale (imperial pound and ounces) instead of
kilogrammes., even though the scales were accurate.
Only
On 4 Aug 2011, at 06:27, Tom Van Baak wrote:
The internet is faster, more reliable, and far more global than
LF or short-wave timecodes ever were. Further, you now get
4 or 5 digits of precision instead of just 1, as well as history
and predictions tens or hundreds of days in advance. All
So giving us 3 years notice of leap seconds instead of six months
should be a total no-brainer.
As I think we've discussed, there are some systems which cannot handle
|DUT1|0.9 (UK broadcast time, for example).
If there is reasonable three year confidence in predicting DUT1, then there is
If you want a relevant technical precedent, look at the OSI protocols:
They were ITU standards which everybody ignored in preference for
TCP/IP
which actually worked.
If only everybody had ignored them. In some European countries,
government policy on OSI was stronger than in others, and
On 17 Jun 2011, at 18:19, Steve Allen wrote:
The CCTF realizes that some misunderstanding exists regarding
the scope of application of the various time scales. It
stresses that TAI is the uniform time scale underlying UTC,
and that it should not be considered as an
In related news: Henry the VIII
On a point of nomenclature (hey, we're _all_ pedants here, right?), Henry VIII
or Henry the Eighth, but not Henry the VIII.
ian
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
On 8 Mar 2011, at 07:23, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 716cb7f3-3a2e-422d-8923-0c0389044...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen
writ
es:
GPS time is pretty much available, and it is pretty much guaranteed
to remain available so long as there is a technological civilization
around [...]
In practice, if one uses NTP to synchronize to UTC, a
POSIX-compliant computer will follow leap seconds more-or-less dutifully,
never mind the standard.
Well, only by counting one second fewer than actually elapsed. At 00:00:01
UTC following a leap second, the kernel will think it is
Having a known list of leap seconds let one recover TAI time from a cold GPS
receiver in a few seconds to a minute, rather than waiting ~20 minutes for
the almanac to download.
You may operate on computers on which adding 19 is a hard problems, but most of
us can manage it in our heads.
Nope. tried that when getting the spec approved. Approximate times weren't
allowed. UTC times were required. There was no way to indicate approximate
time in the user interfaces present (how do you blink a 5071A anyway :). The
other systems that interfaced to ours had a fixed format,
On 21 Feb 2011, at 03:32, Paul Sheer wrote:
[...] But so what? It'll report 00:00:03 Monday when it's really
23:59:57 Sunday --- why is this small number of seconds any more
important than any other small number of seconds error? [...]
A miss is as good as a mile when a timestamp
On 21 Feb 2011, at 10:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20110221100216.ga9...@davros.org, Clive D.W. Feather writes:
Paul Sheer said:
These systems don't care whether the event really did happen at
12:34:56pm nor whether the clock was a few minutes slow that day.
But they DO care
It very much is, without a 10-20 year leap-second horizon, there is no way
we can teach time_t or the time_t successor about leapseconds, and live
up to the POSIX isolated system requirement.
That that's a standards debate: how many systems fit into this isolated
category but need a
On 21 Feb 2011, at 19:14, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Greg Hennessy wrote:
Lets also take a show of hands, would abolishing leap years make timekeeping
more or less complex?
More! It took three and a half centuries to adopt the Gregorian correction...
Imagine having to deal
It is not only about being s isolated, but also about not being
able to download the leap second table for any reason whatsoever.
The conversion from 1298159105 to and from 2011-02-19 23:45:05 on
Posix is currently not inclusive of leap seconds: you just do division
by 86400.
A
I think that before conjecturing the requires of isolated machines
which have no source of leap seconds (not even manual application
via a commandline interface leap_next_31_dec) and yet are
attached to better than 0.02ppm clocks, someone should provide an
example of an isolated
to do this correctly for ten years, it would need a ten year leap
second table.
Or someone to supply a manual update every two or three years. If the
machine is so isolated that it cannot receive those updates, why does
the high-precision timestamp in the logs matter? This is what I fail
Given that we know approximately what the end point will be 100
years from now, we could even have a mechanical rule like the leap-
day rule that would put us in the right neighborhood of
synchronization. Having a good, formulaic/mechanical method for
declaring leap seconds would be a
On 15 Feb 2011, at 05:46, Rob Seaman wrote:
Combining these improved predictions with prudently relaxed DUT1 constraints
should permit extending leap second scheduling to several years.
These steps can be taken today with no tedious international negotiations.
The UK's standard time
On 10 Feb 11, at 0122, Mark Calabretta wrote:
On Wed 2011/02/09 11:44:14 PDT, Warner Losh wrote
in a message to: leapsecs@leapsecond.com
The speculation on the list is that in the absence of a central
authority, local governments will act as their people request when it is
staying
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Tony Finch said:
As far as I can tell from a brief look at the document, the accurate
timestamp requirement applies to trading data, and they don't trade when
there is a DST change or when leap seconds occur.
Does it say that, or are you guessing?
DST
On 9 Feb 2011, at 18:44, Warner Losh wrote:
On 02/09/2011 10:48, Rob Seaman wrote:
The idea that's been put forth is that the transition would be
made all at once. Eastern Time zone would go from TI-5 to TI-4,
most likely by failing to fallback one year in the fall.
Exercise for the
On 8 Feb 2011, at 04:07, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Recently my mom was visiting me in Florida from New York, and when I
was taking her to the airport, she noticed the time was about 4:45
PM, and that it was broad daylight outside, and remarked that at this
time in New York it would be dark
On 8 Feb 2011, at 00:07, Finkleman, Dave wrote:
Addressing all comments at once:
1. I had a similar exchange with Yuri Davydov, then Deputy Director
of
ROSKOSMOS, the Russian Space Agency. His response to operators not
understanding their own operation was, Get smarter operators! He is
On 8 Feb 2011, at 17:05, Gerard Ashton wrote:
Sovereign states have some degree of control over civil time; the remaining
control is
in the control of individuals, either through personal whims or voluntary
collective
action. The IAU, ITU, BIPM, ISO, and all the rest do not have control
On 7 Feb 2011, at 17:21, Finkleman, Dave wrote:
I finally get a chance to look like I might know something.
Neiher Gravity nor the Geoid are standardized. Witness that maps from
some countries do not employ WGS-84.
United Kingdom uses OSGB36 rather than WGS84, and a different Elipsoid
On 4 Feb 2011, at 01:01, Tony Finch wrote:
On 3 Feb 2011, at 20:15, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
Sure, we can quibble about the details. I thought that since ntp/1588 are
used in places that might not have access to the wider internet it would
make sense to allow (but not require)
The reason why the 1970-01-01 00:00:00GMT epoch stuck was they
made the counter 32 bits to fix the problem once and for all
(Source: Dennis Ritchie, at breakfast at USENIX ATC 1998 New Orleans)
I've heard roughly the same story from another Murray Hill-ite. What
I find surprising about it
quantity), counting in microseconds from 00:00 1-1-1900.
Sorry, I mis-remembered: 00:00 1-1-1901. The rationale for that
choice of epoch is interesting in itself: http://www.multicians.org/jhs-clock.html
ian
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
On 7 Jan 2011, at 00:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 47d3bba6-a381-4dad-ad56-08e2b40fd...@pipe.nl, Nero
Imhard writes:
Each year should have at least two [...]
Have you considered that in asia one of them is likely to happen
during
the business day ?
Summer Time shifts
On 31 Dec 2010, at 06:31, Rob Seaman wrote:
My reading of TF.460-4 is that the limit could lengthened to +/- 3.0
seconds (30 emphasized ticks each way) without sacrificing the
actual *radio* mechanism (that it seems to me is the only thing
truly in the purview of ITU-R).
Although there
On 25 Dec 2010, at 00:31, Tony Finch wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/580334.stm
That's a bizarre story. An internet source of GMT? Hardly.
What's the DNS name of the servers in question?
ian
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
