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 thei
> On 9 Feb 2015, at 12:43, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Ian Batten via LEAPSECS 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
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 14:09, Poul-Henning Kamp 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 involved reali
> On 6 Feb 2015, at 02:18, Tom Van Baak 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 tim
> On 30 Jan 2015, at 10:34, Hal Murray 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
>> announces (a few
> On 23 Jan 2015, at 22:18, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 23, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>>
>> In message , Warner Losh
>> write
>> s:
>>
>>> The CRC shows that you have internally consistent data. It really only
>>> catches DNS servers that tell lies for the
> On 6 Nov 2014, at 14:37, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>
> In message
>
> , Sanjeev Gupta writes:
>
>> Note that "seconds" are also a unit of angles, so UT1 seconds being a
>> measure of angle is not strange.
>
> ...and I'm sure any surveyor or ships navigator would be extremely supr
> On 28 Oct 2014, at 00:46, Rob Seaman 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 technology, reality mu
On 17 Oct 2014, at 14:33, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
>
>> On Thu 2014-10-16T17:07:02 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
Nothing would be renamed. Nothing would be redefined.
>>>
>>> Nothing woul
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 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
11 matches
Mail list logo
