In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jonathan E. Hardis" writes:
>>The POSIX and FIPS-151-2 requirement is that you use UTC (with 86400
>>seconds per day), they doesn't say how good you have to be at it.
>
>Hey guys, I hate to spoil all of your fun, but FIPS 151-2 was
>WITHDRAWN eight years ago.
>
>ht
M. Warner Losh wrote:
Yes. But the times that I've proposed loosening DUT1 from +/- .9s (or
is it +/- 1.0s? today) to something like 10s so that you could account
for the long term trends of DUT1 and be able to predict out for 50
years with reasonable degrees of certainty, the details get shot
The POSIX and FIPS-151-2 requirement is that you use UTC (with 86400
seconds per day), they doesn't say how good you have to be at it.
Hey guys, I hate to spoil all of your fun, but FIPS 151-2 was
WITHDRAWN eight years ago.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_regist
Jonathan E. Hardis said:
> Let's take a survey:
>
> * Who on this mailing list is a lawyer?
Not me.
> * Who can cite case law, where a court has had to decide an actual
> controversy on timekeeping?
Me. I did so the other day. So have others (notably the case that defined
legal time as
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: There is
: absolutely nothing in the current definition of UTC to stop us from
: announcing a schedule years in advance. This is by far the easiest
: change to make to UTC.
Yes. But the times that I've pro
On 2008-11-13, at 15:07, Rob Seaman wrote:
Hmmm. Forget about the details of the two main positions
historically prevalent on this list. Call them position "A" and
position "B", rather than "leap seconds must die!" and "friend of
mean solar time", respectively.
I read this list quite
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>Here's another of those strawman positions, set up just to be
>rhetorically knocked down.
Funny how anything that might impede your posistion is a strawman argument
whereas anything we say "you just don't understand".
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The POSIX and FIPS-151-2 requirement is that you use UTC (with 86400
seconds per day), they doesn't say how good you have to be at it.
In other words: if you set your hourglass after your WWVB alarm
clock, and turn it over as required, all the way in the subway to
work,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Hennessy writes:
>Or it might not be relevant.
>
>I actually purchase and set up computers
>at a DoD agency (the Naval Observatory
>as a matter of fact) and my opinion differs
>from yours in some details.
This is not meant as an accusation but I will note, in g
Or it might not be relevant.
I actually purchase and set up computers
at a DoD agency (the Naval Observatory
as a matter of fact) and my opinion differs
from yours in some details.
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Hennessy writes:
The adoption of TI would be mass
At 2008-11-12 15:02 +, Tony Finch wrote:
32 bit POSIX time is signed so extends back before its
(proleptic) epoch of 1970-01-01, and it's not unreasonable to use negative
times to represent (say) timestamps on files archived from the 1960s.
That is not so. The POSIX definition of Seconds S
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Bunclark writes:
>
>
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, John Cowan wrote:
>
>> Peter Bunclark scripsit:
>>
>> > So would that mean that any USGOV owned and operated systems not running
>> > NTP (Window boxes, for example), or those running NTP but are in the
>> > middle of
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, John Cowan wrote:
> Peter Bunclark scripsit:
>
> > So would that mean that any USGOV owned and operated systems not running
> > NTP (Window boxes, for example), or those running NTP but are in the
> > middle of dealing with a leapsecond, are being illegally operated?
>
> Mod
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jonathan E. Hardis" writes:
>>I thought USA went out of their way some years back, to make it
>>clear that the relevant secretary (of commerce ?) decided what
>>US timekeeping was and that it certainly had nothing to do with GMT ?
>>
>>Or was that laying the ground
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Hennessy writes:
>
>>> The adoption of TI would be massive and immediate.
>>
>> And illegal on many systems, including all USGOV owned and operated
>> systems.
>
>Are you sure you want to be commenting on what is and is not legal
>on US computers when you post
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Cowan writes:
>Peter Bunclark scripsit:
>
>> So would that mean that any USGOV owned and operated systems not running
>> NTP (Window boxes, for example), or those running NTP but are in the
>> middle of dealing with a leapsecond, are being illegally operated?
N
On Wed 2008-11-12T09:04:31 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
> My legal research has failed to find any definition in statute of "sunrise"
> and "sunset".
Sunset?
To quote from Buffy the Vampire Slayer "DoubleMeat Palace":
It's a process.
As seen in the following link, especially in the first
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Seaman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Leap Second Discussion List"
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] The relation between calendars and leap seconds.
On Nov 12, 2008, at 6:30 AM, Rob Seaman wr
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Jonathan E. Hardis wrote:
> * Who can cite case law, where a court has had to decide an actual
> controversy on timekeeping? (Courts don't deal with hypothetical
> controversies or arguments over trivia. De minimis non curat lex.)
Curtis v. March, cited earlier in
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
I thought USA went out of their way some years back, to make it
clear that the relevant secretary (of commerce ?) decided what
US timekeeping was and that it certainly had nothing to do with GMT ?
Or was that laying the ground for US unlateral a
The adoption of TI would be massive and immediate.
And illegal on many systems, including all USGOV owned and operated
systems.
Are you sure you want to be commenting on what is and is not legal
on US computers when you post from a .dk address?
Peter Bunclark scripsit:
> So would that mean that any USGOV owned and operated systems not running
> NTP (Window boxes, for example), or those running NTP but are in the
> middle of dealing with a leapsecond, are being illegally operated?
Modern Windows boxes do indeed do NTP, or rather SNTP.
-
Clive D.W. Feather scripsit:
> > > I don't think that R. v Haddock on the meaning of "general purposes" is
> > > settled law in the UK,
> >
> > Doubtless not. But, if you will, remind us just which piece of jolly
> > ligitation that was? There were so many of them
>
> Drinking is not a "g
Clive D.W. Feather scripsit:
> With two-bis being the misinterpretation of "every four years" in the
> Julian calendar, so that Feb 29th was added every *three* years for some
> time (Wikipedia suggests the most likely sequence was 44, 41, 38, 35, 32,
> 29, 26, 23, 20, 17, 14, 11, 8 BC, then a hia
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> I thought the ITU had treaty status, therefore that they could decree
> that we all must henceforth wear Goofy watches that run CCW, and that
> this sober determination would supersede all other laws of God and man.
Even if it were a treaty rather than an IGO, treaties
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Allen writes:
>Standards and laws are commonly disregarded, especially when those
>ignore the practicalities of reality.
>
>Worrying about the effect on the documentation aspects of deployed
>systems did not stop the CCIR from declaring a change to leap second
Standards and laws are commonly disregarded, especially when those
ignore the practicalities of reality.
Worrying about the effect on the documentation aspects of deployed
systems did not stop the CCIR from declaring a change to leap seconds
in 1970.
During the 1960s the CCIR was recommending tha
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Rob Seaman wrote:
>
> Are people really convinced by the argument that badly implemented systems
> should determine policy?
I'm arguing about deployment pragmatics. Note that the systems aren't
badly implemented, they are just following specs based on UT sans leap
seconds.
If
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> And illegal on many systems, including all USGOV owned and operated
>> systems.
>
>I thought the ITU had treaty status, therefore that they could decree
>that we all must henceforth wear Goofy watches that run CC
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Bunclark writes:
>> And illegal on many systems, including all USGOV owned and operated
>> systems.
>
>So would that mean that any USGOV owned and operated systems not running
>NTP (Window boxes, for example), or those running NTP but are in the
>middle of de
Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Rob Seaman wrote:
However, surely the point of coupling TI with the zoneinfo notion -
just for
the sake of argument - is to simply start distributing TI instead
of UTC.
Then UTC - a flavor of Universal Time, an alias for Greenwich Mean
Time (which
a
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Rob Seaman wrote:
>
> However, surely the point of coupling TI with the zoneinfo notion - just for
> the sake of argument - is to simply start distributing TI instead of UTC.
> Then UTC - a flavor of Universal Time, an alias for Greenwich Mean Time (which
> as you say is far fr
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:And illegal on many systems, including all USGOV owned and operated systems.I thought the ITU had treaty status, therefore that they could decree that we all must henceforth wear Goofy watches that run CCW, and that this sober determination would supersede all other laws of
John Cowan said:
> Clive D.W. Feather scripsit:
> > I don't think that R. v Haddock on the meaning of "general purposes" is
> > settled law in the UK,
>
> Doubtless not. But, if you will, remind us just which piece of jolly
> ligitation that was? There were so many of them
Drinking is not
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
> >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >
>
> >However, surely the point of coupling TI with the zoneinfo notion -
> >just for the sake of argument - is to simply start distributing TI
> >instead of UTC. Th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>However, surely the point of coupling TI with the zoneinfo notion -
>just for the sake of argument - is to simply start distributing TI
>instead of UTC. Then UTC - a flavor of Universal Time, an alias for
>Green
Clive D.W. Feather scripsit:
> I don't think that R. v Haddock on the meaning of "general purposes" is
> settled law in the UK,
Doubtless not. But, if you will, remind us just which piece of jolly
ligitation that was? There were so many of them
--
With techies, I've generally found
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Living in a country that legally still uses 'mean solar time on the
15the eastern longitude' I find this very hard to belive.
We have not even come close to eradicating usage of GMT as an
alias for UTC.
Thanks for emphasizing this point.
I think it is safe to say, t
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Rob Seaman wrote:
> Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>
> > No, it's because there are no applications where people need to say "what
> > would my GPS receiver had said in 1751?". Whereas people do need to
> > represent older times in (say) POSIX time.
>
> Do they? Example use case fr
On Nov 12, 2008, at 6:30 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
"dawn's early light"
This better fits twilight. Perhaps "crack of dawn"?
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
My legal research has failed to find any definition in statute of
"sunrise" and "sunset". In particular, it is not clear whether
sunset is when the
(1) upper limb of the sun disappears below
(2) centre of the sun passes
(3) lower limb of the sun first touches
the
(4
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
No, it's because there are no applications where people need to say
"what would my GPS receiver had said in 1751?". Whereas people do
need to represent older times in (say) POSIX time.
Do they? Example use case from 1751?
__
Steve Allen said:
> Here's an interesting point. Nobody misinterprets GPS time.
> Nobody tries to extrapolate it backwards and make algorithms
> about proleptic GPS time. That's because GPS time simply
> did not exist prior to 1980-01-06. Nobody can screw it up
> because GPS time is exactly and
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
> Another issue is that exception rules should not trigger so seldom
> that people forget about them.
>
> Again the 400 year rule is exhibit number 1, and exhibit number two
> could be how Sweden failed to follow their own established rules,
> trying to recover from the old
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Meanwhile, the astronomers in this conversation have repeatedly
>demonstrated the willingness to consider new options, [...]
... as long as they get things their way.
None of the proposals from your hand have addressed the problems
of the oth
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Allen writes:
>On Wed 2008-11-12T01:12:58 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
>The humans will adapt to the name change, even getting it fixed in
>most documents and ancillary software long before the difference
>between TI and UT gets to a few seconds.
Livin
Tony Finch said:
> Halsbury's Laws of England has some interesting (bizarre, self-
> contradictory) paragraphs on the meaning of civil time, which I'll
> append as a postscript because of their length.
I'm going to comment on these, partly because Halsbury is well out of date.
> 215. Local time.
John Cowan wrote:
What has the Moon to do with it? The connection of the Moon to the
calendar was lost in Julius Caesar's time -- doubtless to great
howling
by the astro{nom,log}ical community.
...and around we go again. This was my shorthand way of referring to
all the issues associate
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:23:36PM -0700, Rob Seaman wrote:
> Adi Stav wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 04:13:25PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with your requirements 2,3,4 and I note that UTC doesn't
>>> satisfy
>>> 3, which is another statement of this timeless predictability
>
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> But you're right - I see the light! I now acknowledge that it is more
> important to kowtow to international standards - standards that you
> loudly blare are badly conceived and written - than to acknowledge
> minor facts of physical reality such as that Earth has a
Recall that the U.S. has just been through a two year ordeal of an
election in which the technique you just demonstrated of setting up a
strawman opponent, just to knock it down, has been a daily
occurrence. I've never asserted any position even vaguely similar to
what you say.
Meanwhile
On Wed 2008-11-12T01:12:58 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> The most important requirement is obviously that the proposed
> change, can possibly be made to happen.
The operational systems will not notice if the name of the
broadcast/internet time scale changes. The operational systems will
w
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Continue compiling a coherent, complete and self-consistent set of
>requirements and we can get around to testing the various options.
The most important requirement is obviously that the proposed
change, can possibly be made to happen.
Usi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Poul-Henning Kamp" writes:
>But more importantly, they put their lives, unaware of this fact,
>in hands of automatic systems, which work on the mistaken POSIX
>interpretation of the UTC timescale.
I should add, that the legal impact of POSIX seems to be vastly
un
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
No, actually the word I am looking for is intelligence, and I think
central to both the problem and the solution.
There are only so much nitty-gritty detail a brain can retain and
recall at relevant moments, and the scientific consensus is that
it correlates very strong
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Thorpe writes:
>On 2008-11-11 22:03:44, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>I don't care how many new timescales you want to invent for people
>>with Phd after their names, the only timescale that matters to
>>99....% of this planets population is UTC, and that i
On 2008-11-11 22:03:44, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>I don't care how many new timescales you want to invent for people
>with Phd after their names, the only timescale that matters to
>99....% of this planets population is UTC, and that is the one
>we have to find a workable solution for leapsecon
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
>
>> The limited human intelligence.
>
>I think the word you are looking for is innocence or naivete or
>perhaps simple ignorance, not "limited intelligence".
No, actually the word I am looking for is intelligence,
Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
The limited human intelligence.
I think the word you are looking for is innocence or naivete or
perhaps simple ignorance, not "limited intelligence". The technical
laity manage to navigate quite complex aspects of society, presuming
the details haven't been
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Allen writes:
>But Denmark performed an interesting substitution
>http://www.gkcaracas.um.dk/da/menu/Eksportraadgivning/Markedsmuligheder/Landeinformation/Time/
>
>Whereas I'll admit this is likely one aspect of limited human
>cognition -- the failure to recog
On Tue 2008-11-11T09:17:21 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> The limited human intelligence.
I agree with the point, but I might qualify it better, as with the
tsunami response, to say: limited cognition of any given set of
individuals at any given point in their development, not an inhe
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony F
inch writes:
>> As we saw a couple of years ago, the 400 year leap-year role is slightly
>> above the level of complexity humans can deal with, a significant
>> fraction of "people who should have known" didn't.
>
>I did think of that, but we've just been dis
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Rob Seaman wrote:
> Tony Finch wrote:
>
> > While we are taking a historical view of calendars, it's probably worth
> > observing how past problems similar to the current situation have been
> > resolved. UTC is an observational calendar, and over history these have
> > almost
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> There is one requirement you do not seem to even think about, much less
> mention:
>
> The limited human intelligence.
>
> As we saw a couple of years ago, the 400 year leap-year role is slightly
> above the level of complexity humans can deal
There is one requirement you do not seem to even think about, much less
mention:
The limited human intelligence.
As we saw a couple of years ago, the 400 year leap-year role is slightly
above the level of complexity humans can deal with, a significant
fraction of "people who should have
Tony Finch wrote:
there's no problem dividing a day into 86400 equal seconds if you
can't measure time accurately enough to detect variations in the
length of a day.
A single day, no. An unending sequence of days? Yes, there is a
problem - the problem we have. In addition to Pete's sta
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 04:13:25PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> I agree with your requirements 2,3,4 and I note that UTC doesn't satisfy
> 3, which is another statement of this timeless predictability requirement.
> (Your requirement 4 is only relatively timeless, since it allows for
> changes in
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Peter Bunclark wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 9 Nov 2008, Peter Bunclark wrote:
> > >
> > > So a User requirement might be:
> > > The rythms of life, including the orbits of the earth and the moon,
> > > the rotation of the earth, and convenient
68 matches
Mail list logo
