At the open meeting of US SG7 last week the participants responded
that GPS time was a "pseudo time scale". They indicated that
documents issued by an international regulatory agency trump any and
all other reality, so it is not their problem if any system has had or
may have problems from not imp
On Aug 27, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
> At the open meeting of US SG7 last week the participants responded that GPS
> time was a "pseudo time scale".
> Sometime around 2008-09 the United States Department of State gave approval
> for US WP7A to support the draft revision of ITU-R TF.4
In message <20100827164948.ga13...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>Nothing is safe from redefinition.
Tell that to the inumerable rulers who have fixed european borders
one final time after the other.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP s
Would a continuing objection from China or the UK block adoption?
I am trying to locate a correspondence that I had with the then UK
science minister in about 1999, asking him to clarify the status of
Lord Tanlaw's proposed legislation to change UK legal time from GMT to
UTC, which had a s
On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
At the open meeting of US SG7 last week the participants responded
that GPS time was a "pseudo time scale".
Since you opened with this statement some might read it as having
significance to this discussion. It does not, really.
Many regar
On Sat 2010-08-28T10:09:19 -0400, Jonathan E. Hardis hath writ:
> On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
> >At the open meeting of US SG7 last week the participants responded
> >that GPS time was a "pseudo time scale".
>
> Since you opened with this statement some might read it as having
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Ian Batten wrote:
>
> Although unrelated, it would also open up the whole "moving the UK to WET" can
> of worms, which has become distinctly toxic because of the implications for
> Scotland.
The UK is currently on WET (same as Portugal). There is a small but noisy
lobby that w
On 1 Sep 2010, at 20:02, Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Ian Batten wrote:
Although unrelated, it would also open up the whole "moving the UK
to WET" can
of worms, which has become distinctly toxic because of the
implications for
Scotland.
The UK is currently on WET (same as Por
On 1 Sep 2010 at 20:02, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Ian Batten wrote:
> >
> > Although unrelated, it would also open up the whole "moving the UK to WET"
> > can
> > of worms, which has become distinctly toxic because of the implications for
> > Scotland.
>
> The UK is currently on W
In message <4c7ee805.11354.3a7f2...@dan.tobias.name>, "Daniel R. Tobias" writes
:
>If the time zone boundaries were drawn with any sort of logic with
>respect to keeping the times close to the natural solar time in each
>location, then France and Spain would join the UK and Portugal in
>WET, ra
On 2 Sep 2010, at 07:36, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <4c7ee805.11354.3a7f2...@dan.tobias.name>, "Daniel R.
Tobias" writes
:
If the time zone boundaries were drawn with any sort of logic with
respect to keeping the times close to the natural solar time in each
location, then France a
In message , Ian Batten wri
tes:
>I'm slightly surprised that no-one has suggested adopting the Indian
>solution (UTC+4h30m), which is ideal for political areas that are
>about 30 degrees east to west, and switching the EU to UTC+30m (plus,
>or not, daylight saving in both cases).
I can tel
On 2 Sep 2010 at 7:56, Ian Batten wrote:
> I'm slightly surprised that no-one has suggested adopting the Indian
> solution (UTC+4h30m), which is ideal for political areas that are
> about 30 degrees east to west, and switching the EU to UTC+30m (plus,
> or not, daylight saving in both cases)
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
>
> If the time zone boundaries were drawn with any sort of logic with
> respect to keeping the times close to the natural solar time in each
> location, then France and Spain would join the UK and Portugal in
> WET, rather than the UK shifting the other
In message:
Ian Batten writes:
: We could drift there by applying 1800 leap seconds, one a night for
: five years :-)
All kidding aside, and getting my ob-leap-second post in, I think time
zones are the main reason that we can ditch leap seconds. Civil time
really doesn't need them,
On 2 Sep 2010 at 9:58, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> If it is getting light or dark too early or late, people will just
> change the time zones. This is a very common occurrence, and one
> that will happen naturally before it is midnight with the sun over
> head.
So you'd like to end up with an even
On 3 Sep 2010, at 04:47, "Daniel R. Tobias" wrote:
>
> So you'd like to end up with an even more chaotically convoluted time
> zone map than we already have? Eventually, there'd have to be
> offsets from UTC of 36 or 48 hours, way beyond the theoretical +12
> and -12 (already exceeded by a
on the SAME time. Nobody cares here that solar time and civil time
are 43 minutes off.
*I* care
but I'm not important - I'm just one person
many people might care and many people are not getting to make
the decision because the decision is being made for them.
further, it's not a de
In message: <20100903135619.6674.qm...@protonet.co.za>
p...@2038bug.com writes:
:
: > on the SAME time. Nobody cares here that solar time and civil time
: > are 43 minutes off.
:
: *I* care
:
: but I'm not important - I'm just one person
So do you live on a meridian where the so
> :
> : *I* care
> :
> : but I'm not important - I'm just one person
>
> So do you live [...]
here we have dst
> You are already [...]
agreed
>
> : many people might care and many people are not getting to make
> : the decision because the decision is being made for them.
>
> That decis
On 2010-09-03, at 15:56, p...@2038bug.com wrote:
>> on the SAME time. Nobody cares here that solar time and civil time
>> are 43 minutes off.
>
> *I* care
Warner seems to be missing (or ignoring?) the point.
The difference doesn't matter, the fact that the difference is constant does.
N
_
In message: <67efec27-33c2-4d35-a48f-f7be2ed7d...@pipe.nl>
Nero Imhard writes:
:
: On 2010-09-03, at 15:56, p...@2038bug.com wrote:
:
: >> on the SAME time. Nobody cares here that solar time and civil time
: >> are 43 minutes off.
: >
: > *I* care
:
: Warner seems to be missing
p...@2038bug.com wrote:
> > Nobody cares here that solar time and civil time
> > are 43 minutes off.
>
> *I* care
I do too!
> but I'm not important - I'm just one person
There are TWO of us now!
> many people might care and many people are not getting to make
> the decision because the deci
do we
have enough of a community of |DUT1| < 1s to justify the costs to the
rest of the world, or is it time that this crowd shoulder the costs of
the raw data they need?
Of course, one issue is that it's not a matter of |DUT1|<1s, but
having DUT1 at all. The formats by which DUT1 is propagat
> I really liked your earlier idea of setting up an NTP server that would
> serve a smooth, variable-rate timescale like UT1 or UTS or UTC-SLS, and
> have an associated pledge to continue serving this form of Earth-following
> time regardless of what the ITU does to UTC. I am thinking along very
In message: <7a21eaec-bb0a-4966-a8db-86b084df0...@batten.eu.org>
Ian Batten writes:
: > do we
: > have enough of a community of |DUT1| < 1s to justify the costs to the
: > rest of the world, or is it time that this crowd shoulder the costs of
: > the raw data they need?
:
: Of course,
Warner,
On 2010-09-03, at 20:04, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : The difference doesn't matter, the fact that the difference is constant
> does.
>
> I'm asking these question: Why does it matter so much?
Because UTC was defined this way. Staying close to UT was its very design goal
and is its main
On 3 Sep 2010, at 20:19, M. Warner Losh wrote:
I think that this is why the leap second proposals say they won't
disseminate DUT1 anymore. All they really mean by that, I think, is
that we'll measure it, we'll pubish it, but the time broadcasts will
reset it to '0' and users should note that i
On Sep 3, 2010, at 12:19 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> I think that this is why the leap second proposals say they won't
> disseminate DUT1 anymore. All they really mean by that, I think, is
> that we'll measure it, we'll pubish it, but the time broadcasts will
> reset it to '0' and users should no
On 3 Sep 2010, at 21:02, Nero Imhard wrote:
>
> But indeed DST has its own costly problems. The burden of moving all clocks
> twice a year, made worse because every microwave and refrigerator comes with
> its own clock these days (none of which are self-setting of course), falls on
> the shoul
30 matches
Mail list logo
