Dear Brian,
b...@po.cwru.edu skrev:
From: Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu
...
Like I keep saying, the mean solar day is trivial to compute from the
sidereal day. Look at it this way, there are really 366.25 days per
year. That extra day just gets sliced and diced among all the others.
Nice,
Solaris, Linux and/or Oracle committing suicide:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg13846.html
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice
Rob Seaman wrote:
It's the usual familiar layered architecture and the apparent position
of the Sun is from a higher layer then the - so-called - mean
position.
Sidereal time isn't entirely linear in time either, as we all know.
So if the mean behaviour is the more fundamental, presumably you
Here's an article about a leap-year bug fairly similar to the one in
current Zume music players which immobilized Wang computers in 1984:
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classic-WTF-The-Bug-That-Shut-Down-
Computers-WorldWide.aspx
Also, the comments section of that article includes the actual
Also, the comments section of that article includes the actual code
behind the Zume bug, which involves the system getting put in an
infinite loop on reaching a day number of 366, even though the code
did in fact attempt to be cognizant of leap years.
Dan, thanks for the rtt.c link
Hi Richard,
Yes, it's certainly true that sundials show apparent solar time. I
looked into buying or building a state of the art sundial when we
moved into a new house a few years back. The cost can be staggering,
so this was hard to justify, but the state of the art is pretty spiffy
Zefram wrote:
Rob Seaman wrote:
It's the usual familiar layered architecture and the apparent
position
of the Sun is from a higher layer then the - so-called - mean
position.
Sidereal time isn't entirely linear in time either, as we all know.
So if the mean behaviour is the more
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Rob Seaman wrote:
Mean solar time is highly regular and elegantly simple.
Compared to our clocks it's too irregular.
Civil timekeeping (even under the ITU proposal) is about the underlying
diurnal period.
What does atomic time have to do with the position of the Earth?
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Magnus Danielson wrote:
b...@po.cwru.edu skrev:
That's 303*365+97*366=146097 days for an average of 365.2425 days per year.
Your arthmetic describes solar days, but fails to describe the sidereal days.
No, he's talking about calendar years, as opposed to the
M. Warner Losh skrev:
In message: 1230843729.9555.2.ca...@glastonbury
Ashley Yakeley ash...@semantic.org writes:
: On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 09:41 -0700, Rob Seaman wrote:
: They can't be naively automated. The schedule is currently
: predictable 6 months in advance. Nobody has
Tony Finch wrote:
I find it odd that you are arguing that the mathematical model of
the earth's orbit and rotation is more real than the observations
from which the model is derived.
Clearly I failed again to make my point.
There are two different uses to which one might put statistics.
An interesting NIST document from 2000 gives insight into the turf wars
about precision time scales.
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/1429.pdf
The document makes it clear that GPS time was never designed to follow
UTC(USNO) (and by implication, TAI).
The document also clarifies the distinction
12 matches
Mail list logo
