From: Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Re: UTC
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:19:34 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Certainly. But what's your point? I don't see these utilities failing
> > if a second slips here or there. T
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
[1] likely in my mind. They have a war or two going on, they are
not in a position to take a couple of hours off to see what doesn't
work afterwards.
The war in Iraq, though a pretty big thing for those who are in Iraq,
isn't taxing the DoD much at all. I live near
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
> Within the respective zones created under the authority of sections
> 261 to 264 of this title the standard time of the zone shall insofar
> as practicable (as determined by the Secretary of Transportation)
> govern the
Folks,
This pointless argument is too reminiscent of what passes for
politics here in the USA - unfounded allegations and sudden
distractions from real issues.
The only real example of a problem concerned a cell phone and
an eclipse, and the desire to sell an application that would
mark the cente
> The key to your claim, "coordinated," does not refer to the
synchronization of UTC with UT1. It refers to coordination of multiple
physical clocks
Mike,
Well, there's a lot of coordination going on.
TAI is the coordination of multiple, physical
atomic clocks.
UTC is the coordination of astron
At 07:28 PM 7/28/2005, Tom Van Baak wrote...
>or leap hours, is suitable to civil time. The key
>thing about UTC is the C, the coordination
>between atomic and astronomical time. The
>UTC leap hour proposal honors that.
The key to your claim, "coordinated," does not refer to the synchronization of
> Leap seconds are known with about 6 months warning. UTC has been well
defined for over 30 years. Like it or not, "time" is astronomical, both
historically and in actual civil use. ITYM "self-proclaimed timekeepers."
Correct, and that's why, in the very long term,
TAI is not suitable to civil tim
At 06:50 PM 7/28/2005, Bjorn Gabrielsson wrote...
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:>
>> It will break if the system is built on the basis that UTC is within
>> 0.9 seconds of UT1, which is how UTC is currently defined.
>
>Seems to be a minor concern.
Personal opinions don't count. To you it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
> At 01:58 PM 7/28/2005, Bjorn Gabrielsson wrote...
> >How does a properly implemented system accounting for leapseconds fail
> >when leapseconds fail to come? Sure there will be unnessesary code
> >that could be removed. But I do not see why the system would bre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
> At 01:58 PM 7/28/2005, Bjorn Gabrielsson wrote...
> >How does a properly implemented system accounting for leapseconds fail
> >when leapseconds fail to come? Sure there will be unnessesary code
> >that could be removed. But I do not see why the system would bre
> The legal system in the US (and many other countries) is based on
> solar time, so it would break legal timekeeping.
It is only kinda based on solar time. And only at certain locations,
It is true that the definition of the time zones, in 15 USC 261
states, in part:
the standard time
At 01:58 PM 7/28/2005, Bjorn Gabrielsson wrote...
>How does a properly implemented system accounting for leapseconds fail
>when leapseconds fail to come? Sure there will be unnessesary code
>that could be removed. But I do not see why the system would break.
It will break if the system is built on
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Poul-Henning Kamp" writes:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bjorn Gabrielsson writes:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
>>
>>> Programmers cause programming errors. Leap seconds may make them apparent.
>>>=20
>>> >Certainly the death (if it occurred) was not an a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bjorn Gabrielsson writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
>
>> Programmers cause programming errors. Leap seconds may make them apparent.
>>=20
>> >Certainly the death (if it occurred) was not an automatic result of the =
>leapsecond, but rather was the result of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
> Programmers cause programming errors. Leap seconds may make them apparent.
>
> >Certainly the death (if it occurred) was not an automatic result of the
> >leapsecond, but rather was the result of something that broke because it
> >wasn't properly programmed
At 08:29 AM 7/28/2005, John Ackermann N8UR wrote...
>Mike S wrote:
>>That is a deliberately misleading statement. It MUST be the case that the
>>loss of life occurred due to and improperly designed, incorrectly specified,
>>or improperly used system. The person/organization at fault seeks to misp
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
: At 02:40 AM 7/28/2005, M. Warner Losh wrote...
:
: >The Turin leap second survey said that loss of life had occurred due
: >to a leap second insertion event.
: That is a deliberately misleading statement. It MUST be
Mike S wrote:
At 02:40 AM 7/28/2005, M. Warner Losh wrote...
The Turin leap second survey said that loss of life had occurred due
to a leap second insertion event.
That is a deliberately misleading statement. It MUST be the case that the loss
of life occurred due to and improperly design
At 02:40 AM 7/28/2005, M. Warner Losh wrote...
>The Turin leap second survey said that loss of life had occurred due
>to a leap second insertion event.
That is a deliberately misleading statement. It MUST be the case that the loss
of life occurred due to and improperly designed, incorrectly sp
Tom Van Baak wrote:
You know, if the stackable TAPR module
project catches on another PCB on the list
could be a mains frequency monitor.
It would robustly filter and divide the 50/60 Hz
mains frequency to 1 PPS and then onboard
compare that 1 PPS against the local (OCXO,
atomic, or GPS) 1 PPS
TVB said, "If there's a power
industry person in time-nuts we'd love to ask you
a few questions."
I'm not a power industry person, but I've researched the
problem over the years. Here are some of the results.
The generators are all synchronous machines. The ones in
one power plant rotate with ve
> The Turin leap second survey said that loss of life had occurred due
> to a leap second insertion event. The survey didn't provide any
> additional details. However, I've not been able to find any media
> coverage of such an event, nor find other documentary evidence to
> support it.
Sorry, I
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >> Until after a leap-second hands in the unbudgeted expense or if
: >> we are lucky: the budget request.
: >
: >You won't see any such budget request. None happened 7 years ago,
: >and none will happen t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom Van Baak" writes:
>You know, if the stackable TAPR module
>project catches on another PCB on the list
>could be a mains frequency monitor.
>
>It would robustly filter and divide the 50/60 Hz
>mains frequency to 1 PPS and then onboard
>compare that 1 PPS against
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
>> Certainly. But what's your point? I don't see these utilities failing
>> if a second slips here or there. The one case where time is critical
>> is the power grid, and they keep their own time (Which, IIRC
>> approximates UTC).
>
>The long
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chuck Harris writes:
>> Just because people don't care or notice, doesn't mean not important
>> to them.
>>
>> Most people don't care about water, sewers, electricity and civil
>> order. That doesn't mean it's not important to them. They care
>> a lot as soon as
> Does your phase plot mean that a mains powered wall clock might be off
> by 10 seconds?
>
> Have Fun,
>
> Brooke Clarke, N6GCE
Yes. I also keep an old AC synchronous motor
wall clock around just to see this effect. To be
fair, it is unusual for it to be off this much, or
for very long.
> May
I have a digital clock that runs from the 60 hertz power. I have
noticed several times that TVA power can gain time up to 15 seconds
compared to UTC. Takes a few weeks.
I also did a stability test using a rubidium and dividers and I showed
about a +/- 0.03 hertz deviation over one hour, duri
Hi Tom:
Does your phase plot mean that a mains powered wall clock might be off
by 10 seconds?
Have Fun,
Brooke Clarke, N6GCE
--
w/Java http://www.PRC68.com
w/o Java http://www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/PRC68COM.shtml
http://www.precisionclock.com
Tom Van Baak wrote:
. . .
For real plots of
> > Certainly. But what's your point? I don't see these utilities failing
> > if a second slips here or there. The one case where time is critical
> > is the power grid, and they keep their own time (Which, IIRC
> > approximates UTC).
The power companies used to use GOES heavily;
early this ye
> The truly critical time functions will continue to use TAI,
> or some variant as they currently do
TAI time isn't a silver bullet. It is a timescale that one can
recover, with some effort, but only if one can get the leapsecond
meta-data from somewhere else, since time is overwhelming distr
> Certainly. But what's your point? I don't see these utilities failing
> if a second slips here or there. The one case where time is critical
> is the power grid, and they keep their own time (Which, IIRC
> approximates UTC).
The long term average of the power grid in the US is 60.000 Hz. Sh
Hi Poul,
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
hand. Seconds are just a frill to civil timekeeping.
Wlll, almost.
You see, the technocratic part of the population is very busy
spinning a technological net around the rest of the population, a
net where seconds can cost you fortunes one example being
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chuck Harris writes:
>> For almost the entire population, time is defined as SI seconds,
>> 60 of which is a minute, 24 of which is an hour, 365 of which is a
>> year.
>
>That is correct, but you must also remember that 99 and 44/100ths of
>the population would do j
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chuck Harris writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
Now, for 3 t-shirts Poul, reread Rob's last paragraph, but this
time with your blinders removed.
I'm still trying to get the same b
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chuck Harris writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Now, for 3 t-shirts Poul, reread Rob's last paragraph, but this
>time with your blinders removed.
I'm still trying to get the same basic point across, and answeri
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
Pop quiz! What is the length of the day? No tricks - no gimmicks.
Launch a tee-shirt to that guy in the last row. Right you are! A day on Earth
is 23h 56m 4s.
Now, for two t-shirts:
Which fraction of the eart
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Pop quiz! What is the length of the day? No tricks - no gimmicks.
>
>Launch a tee-shirt to that guy in the last row. Right you are! A
>day on Earth is 23h 56m 4s.
Now, for two t-shirts:
Which fraction of the earths population would disagr
I think I will trouble the list with just one more message on this
topic, as I'm in danger of repeating myself - certainly the folks I'm
replying to have started to do so. It is also remarkable how many
ways there are to make my arguments for me. Too expensive to revise
documentation? So
At 12:32 PM 7/20/2005, Chris O'Byrne wrote...
>Mike wrote
>
>> They missed the event by 7 seconds instead of under 1.
>
>A one second difference in UT1 does not correspond to a one second
>difference in the observed time of the eclipse in an atomic timescale
>... I now think that is wrong - I now
Mike wrote
> Assume someone chasing eclipses in the middle of the desert is an
> "average person," as you have. Exact same scenario, but the program
> was created 7 years prior to show all such events during the next
> century. Because of the unreliable nature of the quadratic equations
> which at
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
: I suppose you believe that DST makes the day longer, too.
Clearly, the extra hour of daylight will burn up the crops!
Warner
___
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@febo.com
At 07:39 AM 7/20/2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes:
>
>>I suppose you believe that DST makes the day longer, too.
>
>No Mike, but I belive some crania are to thick to make it
>worth arguing with the inhabitant.
You misspelled the word "too" in your sel
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes:
>I suppose you believe that DST makes the day longer, too.
No Mike, but I belive some crania are to thick to make it
worth arguing with the inhabitant.
Welcome to my kill file.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECT
At 06:38 AM 7/20/2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote...
>Experience with daylight savings time and timezones indicate that
>it can be two hours off and people still survive.
That's a red herring.
DST isn't applied to UTC.
DST and timezones offset time by a fixed, well defined amounts. As long as a
t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "M. Warner Losh" writes:
>In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>OK. For leap years, we know from 1500ish until ~4000 (assuming they
>change it) the rule will be:
>
> if (y % 4 == 0) && (y % 100 != 0 || y % 400 == 0))
> leap-year
> else
>
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Chris O'Byrne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > >Yes. Leap seconds are absurd enough, leap hours are 3,600 times more
: > >absurd!
: >
: > You forgot to extrapolate that statement to leap days.
:
: Leap days are extrapolatable for the next 1,000 years
At 08:48 AM 7/19/2005, Chris O'Byrne wrote...
>Now, can you come up with a scenario extolling the virtues to the
>average person of leap seconds? Or a scenario in which an
>ever-so-slightly variable second being used by a member of the public
>proves disasterous?
Your scenario has nothing to do wi
Mike,
Since you have asked me to extrapolate the leap second question to leap
days, allow me to do the same. Would you settle for a system whereby you
had to wait on some scientists' verdict before finding out if your next
birthday was going to be on a Sunday or on a Monday?
> It wasn't clear you
At 05:56 AM 7/19/2005, Chris O'Byrne wrote...
>The rules are those of "simple arithmetic". You are not allowed to use
>lookup tables, and you are not allowed to use quadratic equations. You
>are in a hotel, without access to your normal sources of reference,
>without access to a calculator, sittin
Those of you on the LEAPSECS mailing list will aready have seen this,
but I think its worth a read -
http://www.startribune.com/stories/404/5508732.html
I'm responding to Rob and Mike in this email.
First, Rob said
> And if your software reports eclipses later than 2007, it may need to
> be up
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "M. Warner Losh" writes:
>: 2005-07-18T12:34:56Z (UTC)
>: 2005-07-18T12:35:28A (TAI - same instant)
>:
>: Multiple timescales will always exist. We should acknowledge that
>: fact and move on.
>
>The reason that 'Z' is used for UTC is that A-X are used
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
: At 04:36 PM 7/18/2005, M. Warner Losh wrote...
:
: >: By attempting to ignore an intrinsic reality, we are making such
: >: issues more likely, not less. How about an extension to ISO 8601
: >: that would permit
At 04:36 PM 7/18/2005, M. Warner Losh wrote...
>: By attempting to ignore an intrinsic reality, we are making such
>: issues more likely, not less. How about an extension to ISO 8601
>: that would permit distinguishing timescales, something like:
>:
>: 2005-07-18T12:34:56Z (UTC)
>:
Chris O'Byrne says:
I'll give you a very concrete example of the harm of leap seconds. As
part of my interest in astronomy, I chase total solar eclipses. I've
written a program that runs on your mobile phone to calculate when you
can expect to see the eclipse start and end from your location
(ht
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Your program could have been layered on TAI.
Layering the program on TAI is likely a non-starter. Since the
cellular networks use UTC, he'd still need to know about leapseconds.
There's no way around that require
At 08:34 AM 7/18/2005, Chris O'Byrne wrote...
>>>The kind of "simple arithmetic" that I was thinking about precludes
>>>the use of look-up tables.
>>
>> Yet you consider quadratic equations to be "simple arithmetic?"
>
>Simple arithmetic would give an order of magnitude better ESTIMATE. That
>ESTI
Bill asked -
> The initial message asserts that leap
> seconds are harmful. The argument remains unfocused because the
> nature of the harm has not been specified.
I'll give you a very concrete example of the harm of leap seconds. As
part of my interest in astronomy, I chase total solar eclipses.
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Instead of trying, the impossible, task of coming up with a time scale
: that everyone is happy with
: why not come up with something easier, such as stabilizing the
: rotational rate of mother Earth.
It has g
Instead of trying, the impossible, task of coming up with a time scale
that everyone is happy with
why not come up with something easier, such as stabilizing the
rotational rate of mother Earth.
:-)
Bill K7NOM
___
time-nuts mailing list
time-nuts@f
Thanks to all for the excellent discussion - over the past five years
I've seen much less diplomatic discussions on the issues. It has
never bothered me that folks hold a diversity of opinions on UTC -
time is a deeply interesting subject worthy of our best efforts. Any
solution(s) worth
My apologies to those who are offended by a common-sense
application of UTC as civil time. I apologize for not
taking your argument seriously but adding it to the medical
irritations in my life. I have no right to comment on the
amount of traffic in this list.
I measure caliber by correctness, com
At 06:24 PM 7/17/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
>>>simple arithmetic with a timescale with a variable second would give an
>>>order of magnitude better estimate of the amount of time between 2005 Dec 31
>>>23:59:59.9 and 2006 Jan 01 00:00:00.1 than UTC does!
>>
>>UTC will tell you that there is E
>>simple arithmetic with a timescale with a variable second would give an
>>order of magnitude better estimate of the amount of time between 2005 Dec 31
>>23:59:59.9 and 2006 Jan 01 00:00:00.1 than UTC does!
>
>UTC will tell you that there is EXACTLY 1.2 seconds between those two points.
The kind
At 08:25 AM 7/17/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
>simple arithmetic with a timescale with a variable second would give an order
>of magnitude better estimate of the amount of time between 2005 Dec 31
>23:59:59.9 and 2006 Jan 01 00:00:00.1 than UTC does!
UTC will tell you that there is EXACTLY 1
>: So here is my suggestion, and it is an amalgamation of ideas from
>: various quarters. Civil time should be based on a quadratic formula
>: involving TAI. In other words, civil time should track UT over the long
>: term, and be allowed to drift against UT over the short term.
>
>Well, the varyin
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bill Hawk
ins" writes:
>Perhaps some of you didn't understand the paragraph on
>process control systems, or perhaps you are still pondering.
It sounds a lot more like you have no idea what caliber of
people you are talking to Bill.
I have spent 25 years doing all
Perhaps some of you didn't understand the paragraph on
process control systems, or perhaps you are still pondering.
Let me restate the solution for those who can only get UTC
but need monotonically increasing wall clock time.
Note that "you" is no one specific, just not me.
1. Provide your compu
M. Warner Losh said,
"Time sources are in UTC, and you need a leapsecond
count to recover TAI."
Is this what all the fuss is about? UTC is all that is distributed
and you have to do a subtraction to get TAI?
He also said, on the subject of NTP and one days notice,
"So while the computers are lik
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Bill Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: My little program served the needs of civil time. It backs up
: at 59 seconds because the display software can't handle 60.
: That seems close enough for civil work. If you must have
: monotonically increasing
Oh, dear. I have made a mistake. I had not realized that
I was dealing with purists who love to argue.
Here are my understandings of the time scales:
UTC: Civil time, what most people mean by time of day. Was
determined by star crossings at Greenwich, now related to
TAI in that both use the same
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
: : At 06:36 PM 7/16/2005, Robert Lutwak wrote...
: : >As for concern that people in 10,000 years won't conform to having the s
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:
: At 06:36 PM 7/16/2005, Robert Lutwak wrote...
: >As for concern that people in 10,000 years won't conform to having the sun
come up 15 minutes earlier, I'd say y'all are underestimating the power of
adaptive evolutio
At 06:36 PM 7/16/2005, Robert Lutwak wrote...
>As for concern that people in 10,000 years won't conform to having the sun
>come up 15 minutes earlier, I'd say y'all are underestimating the power of
>adaptive evolution.
Innumeracy or deliberate and egregious understatement? AM and PM would be
re
At 06:12 PM 7/16/2005, Bill Hawkins wrote...
>Um, would you care to point out the more serious bugs?
>
>Bill
The UTC time sequence with your code would go (at the 1 second interrupts):
23:59:59.0
23:59:59.0
00:00:00.0
Leading to ambiguous (duplicated) timestamps. The correct solution is closer t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Business)
(978) 927-4099 FAX [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Personal)
(339) 927-7896 Mobile
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement"
Sent: Saturday, July 16,
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Bill Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Um, would you care to point out the more serious bugs?
(1) Leap seconds can happen at the end of any month, not just
june/decemeber.
(2) Leap seconds can be both positive and negative
(3) Local time is typ
gt;From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 3:47 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Re: UTC - A Cautionary Tale
>
>
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bil
Um, would you care to point out the more serious bugs?
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 3:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Re: UTC - A
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bill Hawk
ins" writes:
>Garbage is in the eye of the beholder.
Indeed.
That your "I'm gonna show those morons!!!" example contains serious
bugs in the leap second handling makes this one of my most treasured
emails in this entire debate.
Welcome to category 3) B
Robert Lutwak said,
"It ain't "...a few lines." Properly dealing with timezones, daylight
savings, and leapseconds can easily run into thousands of lines of code, by
the time you include of of the oddball irregularities around the world. Not
only does the clockmaker have to implement all of this
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Why are you so convinced that there couldn't possibly be negative
>ramifications associated with the unexamined assumptions underlying
>the distinction between time-of-day and interval time? Or simply
>with the unwarranted assumption that
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bill Hawk
ins" writes:
>Anybody *know* how The Clock of the Long Now proposed
>to handle leap seconds over 10,000 years? Please note
>the emphasis on "know." We have enough shared
>ignorance as it is, from myself included.
I don't think the intra-day timekeeping w
Poul-Henning Kamp said,
"Hopefully not too many people will be hurt trying to convince you."
The great majority of people do not know that leap seconds exist.
They set their watches by their WWVB (or whatever) inexpensive
atomic clock receiver if they care about time at all.
If you don't have le
Anybody *know* how The Clock of the Long Now proposed
to handle leap seconds over 10,000 years? Please note
the emphasis on "know." We have enough shared
ignorance as it is, from myself included.
The Moon does not cause leap seconds. That effect is
measured in milliseconds per century.
John, shou
Hopefully not too many people will be hurt trying to convince you.
Amen. And hopefully any resulting lawsuits will assign blame and
damages where they belong - with the financial backers and managers
and designers of systems that failed to implement the appropriate
international standard.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>There will be no need to reeducate anybody if the civil time standard
>is left unchanged.
That is why I'm sort of happy we got a leap-second next january:
that will allow us to judge claims like yours.
Hopefully not too many people will be hu
On Jul 16, 2005, at 12:07 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
No, you can not tell me today how many seconds between now and
2010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC and that is the whole problem.
That is *part* of the problem - a part that is intrinsic to living
within a non-inertial reference frame. Folks who n
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike S writes
:
>_All_ uses of civil time expect it to be synchronous with astronomical
>time, to varying degrees of precision. An absence of leap (seconds)
>will eventually cause it to be dark at noon, unadjusted use of the
>current formula for leap days will eventu
At 07:37 AM 7/16/2005, Robert Lutwak wrote...
>Personally, I'd like to eliminate timezones and daylight savings, as well as
>leapseconds. Why is it so important that everyone on the planet clock in at 8
>a.m. or that we all have dinner at 6 p.m. ?
That's a short term view. Eliminate the leap se
Rob Seaman wrote:
Straightforward algorithms (a few lines of C) can convert standard time to
local time and mean time to apparent time.
It ain't "...a few lines." Properly dealing with timezones, daylight
savings, and leapseconds can easily run into thousands of lines of code, by
the time
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>Nobody has invested ten cents in a
>good luck safety net toward the retirement of leap seconds.
The entire problem is that people have not spent ten cents on
properly handling leap seconds.
>The public - including folks like applications prog
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>No - by standardizing the meaning of the terms, we made it possible
>to easily convert between all the flavors of solar time using closed
>form algorithms accurate to whatever precision is required.
No, you can not tell me today how many sec
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
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
