Warner Losh says:
We already have ambiguity in when something occurs, as defined by
Earth. Each timezone is 15 degrees wide, and thus something may
happen at 11:59:59pm local standard time, but really happen at
12:01:01am the next day 'solar' time.
Ambiguity cuts both ways. Standard tim
At 07:07 PM 7/15/2005, M. Warner Losh wrote...
>In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: Historians may care deeply about whether some event
>: occurred on one day (as defined by the Earth) as opposed to another
>: day (as defined by mid-level inter
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Historians may care deeply about whether some event
: occurred on one day (as defined by the Earth) as opposed to another
: day (as defined by mid-level international bureaucrats). Religious
: issues anybody
Poul-Henning Kamp replies:
Shouldn't we explore the requirements and use cases before making
a change to the standard?
Absolutely, but shouldn't we look at more than astronomy while
doing so?
Are you under the impression that the folks pushing this proposal are
looking anywhere beyond t
Last time I heard anybody jump into an argument with "surely" was in college
in 1958. Harrumph. Surely this list hasn't been hit with a group
of sophomores because someone posted the address on a campus bulletin
board.
Chris O'Byrne said,
"Civil time should be based on a quadratic formula involvin
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Chris O'Byrne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: The rest of us need a useable timescale where the sun is basically due
: south in Greenwich at 12:00:00.000. However, since the equation of time
: introduces a natural error of +/- 15 minutes or so in the exac
Surely the way to look at the timescales and leap second issues are to
look at the requirements and go from there.
It seems to me that there are two basic requirements. Scientists of
various colours need a regular timescale, and are not particularly
concerned if the sun is above or below the horiz
