On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:36:17AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neal McBurnett writes:
> >On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:32:08PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the
> >> leapseconds with 20 years notic
On Wed 2006-01-04T07:36:17 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neal McBurnett writes:
> >Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
>
> It is an educated guess.
>
> The IERS have already indicated that they belive they could do prediction
> under the 0.9 second t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neal McBurnett writes:
>On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:32:08PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the
>> leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers
>> that survive longer than that would
> I continue to find the focus on general purpose computing
> infrastructure to be unpersuasive. If we can convince hardware and
> software vendors to pay enough attention to timing requirements to
> implement such a strategy, we can convince them to implement a more
> complete time handling infra
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:32:08PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the
> leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers
> that survive longer than that would need to update the factory
> installed table of leapsecond
On Jan 3, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Davies writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the
leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers
that survive longer than that woul
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Davies writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>> If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the
>>> leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers
>>> that survive longer than that would need to update the factory
>>> installed ta
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the
leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers
that survive longer than that would need to update the factory
installed table of leapseconds.
Rob Seaman replied:
No. Rather all comput
All right - I guess we can go another round or two while waiting -
perhaps indefinitely - for reports of leap second related
catastrophes to filter in.
First, an apology for posting my previous reply publicly. It escaped
my notice that I was replying to a private message.
On Jan 3, 2006, at 12:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>John Hawkinson replies:
>
>I think PHK has demonstrated the ability (and willingness :-) to hold
>up his own end of an argument. Should we ever find ourselves at the
>same conference, I'll buy him a beer in anticipation of a rousing
>discussion.
John Hawkinson replies:
Time handling bugs typically appear in the interfaces between
systems that make contradictory assumptions.
I think phk's point ("text book example") was that these problems
were more likely to have been detected in a world where everyone's
default timescale (UTC) was n
On Jan 1, 2006, at 3:29 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/ebisawa/ASCAATTITUDE/
This describes a system for "attitude determination", i.e., for
pointing the ASCA X-ray telescope at celestial objects. It appears
there were several bugs in time handling. They get
12 matches
Mail list logo
