ct. Nice job on the program!
Tnx,
Jim
>-Original Message-
>From: Tom Van Baak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 2:16 PM
>To: JOHNSON,JIM (A-Labs,ex1)
>Cc: time-nuts@febo.com
>Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30, nixie clock
>
e-nuts.htm
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 09:38
Subject: RE: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30
Hi Tom,
Works just fine in both IE ver. 5.5 SP2 and
in Firefox ver. 1.0. However, in both browsers
the applic
ge-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Behalf Of Tom Van Baak
>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:14 PM
>To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30
>
>
>So, after a 7 year delay my
>nixie tube
Has any of the timesignals (GPS, WWV, MSF, DCF etc) started announcing
the leap second yet ?
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be
Very cool, Tom. It works fine on Firefox/Linux here.
John
Tom Van Baak wrote:
>So, after a 7 year delay my
>nixie tube Leap Second countdown clock
>is back in action. Check out:
>
>http://www.leapsecond.com/java/nixie.htm
>
>If the page doesn't display properly with your
>web browser pleas
Less than 171 days until total destruction! :-) Chicken Little was right.
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Van Baak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:14
Subject: Re: [time-nuts
So, after a 7 year delay my
nixie tube Leap Second countdown clock
is back in action. Check out:
http://www.leapsecond.com/java/nixie.htm
If the page doesn't display properly with your
web browser please let me know so I can fix it.
/tvb
- Original Message - >
> INTERNATIONAL EART
Mike S said,
"No, it isn't."
This reminded me of something I saw in Monty Python's "All
the Words" Volume 2 called "The Argument Clinic." John
Cleese is Mr Vibrating, of the clinic.
...
Man - Look this isn't an argument.
Mr Vibrating - Yes it is.
Man - No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
Mr Vi
At 03:15 PM 7/5/2005, Warner Losh wrote...
>UTC was intended to be a civil time. It was thought that it would be
>best if it followed astronomical time. Maybe that fundamental thought
>is just wrong.
No, it isn't. Since much law is based upon specific reference to solar time,
UTC (with leap sec
> At 01:05 PM 7/5/2005, Warner Losh wrote...
> >(2) UTC is an externally imposed requirement. Our users have
> >different needs for things, but UTC is a standard, and
> >we must provide it.
> Well then, the cost argument goes away - it is simply a cost of
> doing b
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes
:
>Why do you refuse to recognize that eliminating leap seconds from
>UTC has huge costs to other organizations?
Where are these alleged costs documented ?
All I've seen yet is from various astronomers who have hedged their
bets with a "I want a brand
At 01:28 PM 7/5/2005, Magnus Danielson wrote...
>What we really would need is an ISO-8601 like fashion to indicate the UTC-TAI
>difference that the time was given in. So, even if a device have the wrong
>UTC-TAI offset, you would be able to correct for it. However, that one should
>have been in pl
At 01:05 PM 7/5/2005, Warner Losh wrote...
>(2) UTC is an externally imposed requirement. Our users have
>different needs for things, but UTC is a standard, and
>we must provide it.
Well then, the cost argument goes away - it is simply a cost of doing business.
TA
From: Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 10:58:32 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Warner,
> > The main problem is that you can't directly get the UTC - TAI difference,
> > right? If
> At 11:44 AM 7/5/2005, M. Warner Losh wrote...
> >In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >: No, you didn't. What you and Warner HAVE demonstrated is that you
> >: _chose_ the wrong time coordinate system for your
> >: systems/applications.
> >
> >How do you know this? I've demonstrated no such thing.
> The main problem is that you can't directly get the UTC - TAI difference,
> right? If you had that, then you could always convert between them.
That's the crux of the matter. With leap days, I know when to insert
one for the next thousand years or so. With leap seconds, I have no
clue. Not on
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Magnus Danielson write
s:
>> Ohh, how I wish I were in a position to tell POSIX: "Sorry, the
>> time_t definition is wrong (and useless), fix it now please!".
>
>OUPS! BUT IT IS BROKEN
>However, the ISO C standard has it (more) right.
>
>Now I learned somethin
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:40:54 +0200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hej Poul-Henning,
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes
> :
>
> >No, you di
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes
:
>I'm not the one arguing that others should address his self-created
>problem. Thread over. You lost.
Wrong, hopefully, and yes, (since I have to do the work).
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP
At 11:44 AM 7/5/2005, M. Warner Losh wrote...
>In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>: No, you didn't. What you and Warner HAVE demonstrated is that you
>: _chose_ the wrong time coordinate system for your
>: systems/applications.
>
>How do you know this? I've demonstrated no such thing. We *DO* use T
At 10:40 AM 7/5/2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes
>:
>
>>No, you didn't. What you and Warner HAVE demonstrated is that you
>>_chose_ the wrong time coordinate system for your systems/applications.
>
>Ohh, how I wish I were in a position to tell POSIX: "
From: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 09:44:46 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : Instead of using TAI, which doesn't have leap
> : seconds, you chose to use UTC, which do
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: No, you didn't. What you and Warner HAVE demonstrated is that you
: _chose_ the wrong time coordinate system for your
: systems/applications.
How do you know this? I've demonstrated no such thing. I told you no
such thing in any of my posts. You have made an as
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes
:
>No, you didn't. What you and Warner HAVE demonstrated is that you
>_chose_ the wrong time coordinate system for your systems/applications.
This made me laugh...
Ohh, how I wish I were in a position to tell POSIX: "Sorry, the
time_t definition is w
At 09:51 AM 7/5/2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>Mike, taking things out of context is a silly way to argue.
If you really believed that, you would not have disingenuously trimmed context
from my earlier post by removing the text which directly addressed the argument
you then made.
>I think I
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Magnus Danielson write
s:
>> Sea-level on this planet, yes.
>
>Whatever sea-level on this planet is. It's not at the sea-level at all.
I know, but I didn't even want to add all that complication :-)
>The Universal in UTC is to indicate our world, the earth, and no
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes
:
>At 02:37 AM 7/5/2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>>I can only support Warners notion that you have _no_ idea.
>
>I had expected better than ad hominem attacks on this list. I'm
>disappointed in this, and will take it as a clear indication that
>the p
Maybe being a newbie, means staying out of the way of giant.. well
I'll take the chance of embarrassing myself...
Magnus Danielson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> It will not be locked to any more or less random piece of geophysics,
> > >> anyone with a cesium clock and a set of gen-rel coord
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 08:29:44 +0200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hej Poul-Henning!
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Magnus Danielson write
> s:
>
> >
At 02:37 AM 7/5/2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>I can only support Warners notion that you have _no_ idea.
I had expected better than ad hominem attacks on this list. I'm disappointed in
this, and will take it as a clear indication that the poster is unable to
rationally defend his position.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes
:
>Much the same can be said of leap years (or more correctly, days).
>The mechanics are similar Feb 28>Feb 29>Mar 1 is fundamentally no
>different than 23:59:59>23:59:60>00:00:00, it's just adding to the
>appropriate count on an exception basis.
The v
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes
:
>At 03:02 PM 7/4/2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>>Instead, if we abandon leap-seconds, then we finally have a _truly_
>>universal timescale.
>>
>>It will not be locked to any more or less random piece of geophysics,
>>anyone with a cesium clock and
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Magnus Danielson write
s:
>> And btw, it probably would not even be a leap-second for him, since
>> general relativity would take its toll. I'm not sure my grasp of the
>> math is good enough to figure out how long his leap-second would be.
>>
>> Instead, if we ab
At 05:16 PM 7/4/2005, M. Warner Losh wrote...
>Leap days are predictable. Leap seconds aren't. Everyone deals with
>leap days because they have been around for thousands of years. Leap
>seconds haven't and are random. That's a fundamental difference.
Which I didn't deny and in fact pointed out
From: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:16:26 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
>
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
: Much the same can be said of leap years (or more correctly, days).
: The mechanics are similar Feb 28>Feb 29>Mar 1 is fundamentally no
: different than 23:59:59>23:59:60>00:00:00, it's just adding to the
: appropriat
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
: At 04:42 PM 7/4/2005, Warner Losh wrote...
: >You've clearly not dealt with many such system then if you are going
: >to make such sweeping statements.
:
: Your sweeping statement is wrong.
Sorry, they are not. I've
At 04:42 PM 7/4/2005, Warner Losh wrote...
>You've clearly not dealt with many such system then if you are going
>to make such sweeping statements.
Your sweeping statement is wrong.
>The truth of the matter is that there's a very real cost to leap seconds.
There are many costs to keeping accurat
> Fact is, time measurement _is_ based on geophysics, and the absence
> of leap seconds wouldn't make it "universal" in any way. That being
> the case, it is not unreasonable to keep it properly aligned. Leap
> seconds have been around long enough that any IT system which can't
> accommodate them i
At 03:02 PM 7/4/2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>Instead, if we abandon leap-seconds, then we finally have a _truly_
>universal timescale.
>
>It will not be locked to any more or less random piece of geophysics,
>anyone with a cesium clock and a set of gen-rel coordinates will be
>able to figure o
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:02:35 +0200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Magnus Danielson write
> s:
> >> >> It also mea
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: The other half is that leap-seconds are just not testable in a computer
: setting, and therefore I am sure that any cost of dropping them will
: be totally offset by the savings in the IT industry.
I can
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Magnus Danielson write
s:
>> >> It also means that the attempt to prevent leapseconds before they
>> >> do more damage failed...
>> >
>> >Would the alternative be much better?
>>
>> Lets not restart that discussion :-)
>
>I kindly asked for your opinion. I know ther
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Magnus Danielson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Considering how "off" some systems are in time, a leapsecond more or less will
: not make much of a difference.
The problem isn't so much how things are off, but rather how things
flywheel through them.
War
> >We are finally going to have a leap second again (first one since I
bought
> >my 5071A over five years ago)...
>
> It also means that the attempt to prevent leapseconds before they
> do more damage failed...
>
> It even means we get to see how much damage they'll make...
The way I figure it if
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 20:19:28 +0200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hej Poul-Henning,
> >> It also means that the attempt to prevent leapseconds before
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Magnus Danielson write
s:
>> >We are finally going to have a leap second again (first one since I bought
>> >my 5071A over five years ago)...
>>
>> It also means that the attempt to prevent leapseconds before they
>> do more damage failed...
>
>Would the alternati
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] FW: Bulletin C number 30
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 20:09:26 +0200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hej Poul-Henning,
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Doug Hogarth" writes:
>
> &g
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Doug Hogarth" writes:
>We are finally going to have a leap second again (first one since I bought
>my 5071A over five years ago)...
It also means that the attempt to prevent leapseconds before they
do more damage failed...
It even means we get to see how much da
We are finally going to have a leap second again (first one since I bought
my 5071A over five years ago)...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 6:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bulletin C number 30
INTERNATIONAL
50 matches
Mail list logo
