Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

David Grellscheid said: > The calendar-change legislation took care of that by moving the end date > of the tax year from the traditional quarter-day of March 25th to April 6th. > > Sadly, there was no Hansard yet to record the moment when the Lords > realised they would lose 12 days worth of re

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Ian Batten said: >> The calendar-change legislation took care of that by moving the end >> date of the tax year from the traditional quarter-day of March 25th >> to April 6th. > March 25 is, of course, Lady Day. More to the point, it was also New Year's Day in England until 31st December 1751

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 4 Sep 2010, at 20:11, David Grellscheid wrote: On 03/09/2010 19:50, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Or at least queue it, where it belongs, behind the still pending tax-refund for the 12 missing days in september 1752 ? The calendar-change legislation took care of that by moving the end date

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 03/09/2010 19:50, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Or at least queue it, where it belongs, behind the still pending tax-refund for the 12 missing days in september 1752 ? The calendar-change legislation took care of that by moving the end date of the tax year from the traditional quarter-day of Ma

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 3 Sep 2010, at 22:14, Rob Seaman wrote: > Greenwich Mean Time is the Mean Solar Time in Greenwich. Is this its > "historical astronomical meaning"? Or is this its "definition"? The former, because in current usage it is a synonym for UTC (which I do not regard as an astronomical timescale

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Greenwich Mean Time is the Mean Solar Time in Greenwich. Is this its "historical astronomical meaning"? Or is this its "definition"? -- On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Rob Seaman wrote: >> On Sep 3, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Tony Finch wrote: >> >>> If you are sync

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

In message: <1009032024.aa04...@ivan.harhan.org> msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) writes: : * From what I understand the 4.4BSD-derived BSD systems have : switched to using the "posix" versions of the Olson tz files. It is still an option to use the "right" versions of the

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Ian Batten wrote: > I have a dim memory, based on wrestling with one of the *BSD's NTP > implementation in the mid 1990s, that one Unix decided to tick TAI > rather than UTC and move leap-seconds into userspace. But it's all > very dim... Olson's tz implementation did that at an early poi

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <722f0d89-cbfa-423a-9c9e-6d919ded9...@batten.eu.org> > Ian Batten writes: > : > > : > I'd wager that UTC, whatever its realization, would likely trump any > : > locally written laws. > : > : It'll be interesting in the UK > : >

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

In message , Tony F inch writes: >If the ITU change the >definition of GMT, and if the British government continues to follow ITU >recommendations and to disregard the historical astronomical meaning of >GMT, then the equivalence will continue. Just to highlight how laughable the retroimperialist

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Zefram wrote: > Tony Finch wrote: > >As we have seen there are a lot of intricate > >details whose necessity people can legitimately disagree about and no way > >to determine an official consensus. Which is why I say that astronomical > >GMT doesn't exis

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Rob Seaman wrote: > On Sep 3, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > > > If you are syncing to what is now called "GMT" you are syncing to UTC > > because they are now in practice exact synonyms. > > And this is precisely what the ITU is planning to break. I'm not sure that's tr

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Sep 3, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > If you are syncing to what is now called "GMT" you are syncing to UTC because > they are now in practice exact synonyms. And this is precisely what the ITU is planning to break. This very entrenched assumption will no longer be valid. Reminds me

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Fri 2010-09-03T17:45:34 +0100, Zefram hath writ: > I don't think an official realisation of GMT is required in order > for GMT to meaningfully exist. That means it cannot be a precision time scale, for there is no authority to define a single realization. What the ITU-R is righly tasked to do

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Tony Finch wrote: >As we have seen there are a lot of intricate >details whose necessity people can legitimately disagree about and no way >to determine an official consensus. Which is why I say that astronomical >GMT doesn't exist. Interesting argument. I disagree with yo

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

In message: <20100903160248.ga16...@lake.fysh.org> Zefram writes: : Ian Batten wrote: : >I have a dim memory, based on wrestling with one of the *BSD's NTP : >implementation in the mid 1990s, that one Unix decided to tick TAI : >rather than UTC and move leap-seconds into userspace.

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Ian Batten wrote: >I have a dim memory, based on wrestling with one of the *BSD's NTP >implementation in the mid 1990s, that one Unix decided to tick TAI >rather than UTC and move leap-seconds into userspace. But it's all very >dim... The Olson timezone database has some support for this. I

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 3 Sep 2010, at 15:45, p...@2038bug.com wrote: Don't disregard ITU totally here. ITU-T has UTC written into the standards for cross-TelCo billing interfaces/protocols. ...all the implementations of those standards just use unix time. I have a dim memory, based on wrestling with one of

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Zefram wrote: > Tony Finch wrote: > >Thanks for the informative explanation, but GMT is not and was not UT1. > > Picky, picky. OK, let's look at the strictest sense of "GMT", taking the > Greenwich meridian to be defined by the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, > rather than by the

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Don't disregard ITU totally here. ITU-T has UTC written into the standards for cross-TelCo billing interfaces/protocols. ...all the implementations of those standards just use unix time. -paul ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Tony Finch wrote: >Thanks for the informative explanation, but GMT is not and was not UT1. Picky, picky. OK, let's look at the strictest sense of "GMT", taking the Greenwich meridian to be defined by the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, rather than by the ITRF. Specifically, the 1851 meridian defin

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Zefram wrote: > Tony Finch wrote: > > > >Oh, do tell, where will you get your GMT reference from? > > If I were doing it, I would take the DUT1 projections from IERS Bulletin > A , interpolate between them, > and add the resulting DUT1 ont

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Tony Finch wrote: >On 3 Sep 2010, at 01:41, msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) wrote: >> I very soon will, as soon as I get my rubber time generator working. > >Oh, do tell, where will you get your GMT reference from? If I were doing it, I would take the DUT1 projections from IERS Bulletin

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 3 Sep 2010, at 05:50, Rob Seaman wrote: > I was referring to GMT broadly as "the astronomical timescale" and "for all > practical purposes" "de facto the same as UTC". My point is that if you are being precise this is nonsense. GMT in the historic sense of a solar timescale does not exist a

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Sep 3, 2010, at 1:04 AM, Ian Batten wrote: > I have a clock ticking SI seconds at arbitrarily high precision and > resolution. Examine your premises. At some point in the past five years or so there was a thread discussing the distinction between clocks and timers. I won't attempt to reco

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Remember to practice safe time transfer. Always use rubber seconds. Stay safe. Warner On Sep 3, 2010, at 1:46 AM, Rob Seaman wrote: And I'd point you to Steve Allen :-) On Sep 3, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote: Tony Finch wrote: Oh, do tell, where will you get your GMT refe

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 3 Sep 2010, at 08:44, Michael Sokolov wrote: Tony Finch wrote: Oh, do tell, where will you get your GMT reference from? If I have trouble figuring it out myself, I'll just E-mail Rob Seaman and ask him what time it is. Suppose I wish to measure 10 solar seconds from now, forward. I h

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

And I'd point you to Steve Allen :-) On Sep 3, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote: > Tony Finch wrote: > >> Oh, do tell, where will you get your GMT reference from? > > If I have trouble figuring it out myself, I'll just E-mail Rob Seaman > and ask him what time it is. Given that his vi

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Tony Finch wrote: > Oh, do tell, where will you get your GMT reference from? If I have trouble figuring it out myself, I'll just E-mail Rob Seaman and ask him what time it is. Given that his views on the subject as expressed on this list are much closer to mine than, say, PHK's, I would trust h

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Tony Finch wrote: >>> The fact that it used to be a mean solar timescale is now just etymology. >> I wrote: >> I know it to be untrue for systems under my oversight. Tony wrote: > No. You do not run any systems synced to solar GMT. No-one does. Perhaps I elided too much context. Tony said:

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 2 Sep 2010 at 12:49, M. Warner Losh wrote: > I'd wager that UTC, whatever its realization, would likely trump any > locally written laws. After all, UTC has been a widely accepted > approximation of the local laws that's attained the force of law > through repetitive use They can get away wit

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 2 Sep 2010 at 13:06, Finkleman, Dave wrote: > This is my first post, so I'm not sure if it gets through. It did, but quoting back entire digests (as you've done several times) is frowned upon on lists, as is using "Digest" subject lines instead of the specific subject line of the message y

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 3 Sep 2010, at 01:41, msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) wrote: > Tony Finch wrote: > >> No. You do not run any systems synced to solar GMT. No-one does. > > I very soon will, as soon as I get my rubber time generator working. Oh, do tell, where will you get your GMT reference from?

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Tony Finch wrote: > No. You do not run any systems synced to solar GMT. No-one does. I very soon will, as soon as I get my rubber time generator working. MS, who wants to live his life on rubber time (rubber seconds). ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSEC

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 2 Sep 2010, at 21:34, Rob Seaman wrote: > On Sep 2, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > >> The fact that it used to be a mean solar timescale is now just etymology. > > I know it to be untrue for systems under my oversight. No. You do not run any systems synced to solar GMT. No-one does.

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 2 Sep 2010, at 20:45, M. Warner Losh wrote: Do you have references to case law that confirms this interpretation? Citing a literal reading of the current law doesn't prove that the text is the actual law, as interpreted by courts. There are many instances in this country where the literal me

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Sep 2, 2010, at 1:17 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > The fact that it used to be a mean solar timescale is now just etymology. If the ITU gets its way, we will conduct a worldwide experiment of this assertion. I know it to be untrue for systems under my oversight. A coherent engineering process wo

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Ian Batten wrote: > > It'll be interesting in the UK Yes. > * There's no doubt that UK legal time is GMT, Interpretation Act 1978, S.9 > > * There's no doubt that whatever GMT is, it's solar, and there's no doubt > that whatever UTC is, it isn't solar and would be even less s

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

In message: <722f0d89-cbfa-423a-9c9e-6d919ded9...@batten.eu.org> Ian Batten writes: : > : > I'd wager that UTC, whatever its realization, would likely trump any : > locally written laws. : : It'll be interesting in the UK : : * There's no doubt that UK legal time is GMT, Interpretati

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > railroads was what got us timezones in the first place, and to the right > people they were fantastically profitable. It was the railroads that were profitable. The timezones were an engineering response forced on the robber barons by real world constraints. Other s

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

In message , Rob Seaman writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> ITU-T has UTC written into the standards for cross-TelCo billing >> interfaces/protocols. > >So it's literally true: > > Money makes the world go round Ohh, you bet. Don't remember that railroads was what got us timezones in th

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

I'd wager that UTC, whatever its realization, would likely trump any locally written laws. It'll be interesting in the UK * There's no doubt that UK legal time is GMT, Interpretation Act 1978, S.9 * There's no doubt that whatever GMT is, it's solar, and there's no doubt that whatever UT

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > ITU-T has UTC written into the standards for cross-TelCo billing > interfaces/protocols. So it's literally true: Money makes the world go round ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.n

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

In message <20100902.124924.244264502706473427@bsdimp.com>, "M. Warner Losh " writes: >I'd wager that UTC, whatever its realization, would likely trump any >locally written laws. After all, UTC has been a widely accepted >approximation of the local laws that's attained the force of law >throu

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Ian Batten wrote: > Could you clarify that? DUT1 is surely produced by IERS, who aren't > accountable to the ITU, and propagated by (as examples) WWVB and MSF, which > are accountable via NIST to the US government and via NPL to the UK > government. I assume the o

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

In message <3b33e89c51d2de44be2f0c757c656c8809437...@mail02.stk.com>, "Finklema n, Dave" writes: >I believe that China, Brazil, Germany, and the UK >support keeping the leap second. Denmark is not going to return the questionaire at all, I talked to the guy who's table it landed on after I asked

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Can't speak for the other Canadian provinces and territories, but the official time for New Brunswick is based on "GMT": . Of course, they might actually mean UTC but that is not what the act says. -- Richard Langley On 2-Sep-10, at 3:26 PM, Ian B

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

In message: <20100902183636.gb13...@ucolick.org> Steve Allen writes: : On Thu 2010-09-02T19:26:03 +0100, Ian Batten hath writ: : > It would be interesting to produce a list of countries where legal : > time is not UTC, to see what the divide would look like. Wikipedia : > claims Belgi

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On Thu 2010-09-02T19:26:03 +0100, Ian Batten hath writ: > It would be interesting to produce a list of countries where legal > time is not UTC, to see what the divide would look like. Wikipedia > claims Belgium, Canada and Eire: for extra fun, I bet most consumers > of time signals in Belgium use

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

On 2 Sep 2010, at 18:37, Rob Seaman wrote: For just one instance, the proposal is not only to cease leap seconds, but to cease the reporting of DUT1 Could you clarify that? DUT1 is surely produced by IERS, who aren't accountable to the ITU, and propagated by (as examples) WWVB and MSF,

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

Hi Dave, Yes, your post got through. On Sep 2, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Finkleman, Dave wrote: > Those that I have access to claim that we can estimate up to about four > months in advance with quantified uncertainty. Did you mean "four years" here? They appear to have been doing just fine with si

Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

This is my first post, so I'm not sure if it gets through. Several of you are following the leap second campaign that Ken Seidelmann, John Seago, and I rejuvenated as the Oct ITU-R meeting approaches. My goal is not to disenfranchise those who would be disadvantaged if the leap second is elimin