On 8 Feb 2011, at 04:07, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Recently my mom was visiting me in Florida from New York, and when I
was taking her to the airport, she noticed the time was about 4:45
PM, and that it was broad daylight outside, and remarked that at this
time in New York it would be dark
On 8 Feb 2011, at 00:07, Finkleman, Dave wrote:
Addressing all comments at once:
1. I had a similar exchange with Yuri Davydov, then Deputy Director
of
ROSKOSMOS, the Russian Space Agency. His response to operators not
understanding their own operation was, Get smarter operators! He is
On 2/8/2011 6:42 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
the whole point of universal time is that it's the default timscale
for civil use and only specialists should need anything else.
Stephen should add this to the consensus building list.
Does that
Gerard Ashton said:
A secular change to civil time that would be perceptible without the aid
of a clock has
never been introduced,
How about those places that moved timezone permanently.
Actually, without a clock, how would you *ever* know that civil time had
changed?
--
Clive D.W. Feather
Tony Finch wrote:
the whole point of universal time is that it's the default timscale
for civil use and only specialists should need anything else.
Seeking consensus, I said:
Stephen should add this to the consensus building list.
Tony said:
Does that mean that you agree that its very
In message c222a54a-321e-4a5f-ad7a-efb12a4fd...@noao.edu, Rob Seaman writes:
Phrases like tight coupling are misleading. The ITU position
has only ever been to remove *all* coupling. On this list we have
often discussed various ways to relax the current constraints. It
is the ITU who have been
On 2/8/2011 9:51 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Gerard Ashton said:
A secular change to civil time that would be perceptible without the aid
of a clock has
never been introduced,
How about those places that moved timezone permanently.
A single permanent time zone change is not a secular
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
Ian Batten wrote:
Knife-edge systems which rely on the correct application of high-grade
skills may suit people with The Right Stuff, but real-world
engineering has to function when the operators are merely average, or
tired, or distracted.
There
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
I'd say that history is pretty quiet on timekeeping issues in general.
I think very highly of Dava Sobel's Longitude, but one book does not a
library make.
There's also Saving the Daylight by David Prerau. (The title has varied
a bit.)
Also Calendrical
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
History has shown that very few, if any, governments have been unable
to carry through their more or less well thought out policies in this
area.
Well, it can be difficult to identify government policies; various
office holders and agencies tend to scurry about
In message 4d516e58.3010...@comcast.net, Gerard Ashton writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
History has shown that very few, if any, governments have been unable
to carry through their more or less well thought out policies in this
area.
Well, it can be difficult to identify government policies;
I said:
Civil timekeeping is a worldwide system.
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
No it is not.
It is remarkable how the most aggressive responses to my posts are when I
mention system engineering or best practices or otherwise suggest that this
is fundamentally an exercise in proper system
Sovereign states have some degree of control over civil time; the
remaining control is
in the control of individuals, either through personal whims or
voluntary collective
action. The IAU, ITU, BIPM, ISO, and all the rest do not have control
over civil timekeeping
because the weights and
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
UTC is not civil time anywhere,
I understand that you wish to assert that local time == civil time.
But you also assert that computer networks worldwide must be
synchronized. Is this latter somehow not a civil function?
Civil usually relates to a
On 02/08/2011 07:55, Rob Seaman wrote:
Regarding your current question, I would personally assert:
Coupling civil timekeeping to Earth rotation is a necessary feature.
I suspect some others here might not be willing (yet) to promote this to
consensus :-)
Phrases like tight coupling
On Tue 2011-02-08T13:14:27 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
I'd be willing to agree that Coupling of Civil time to the earth is
required. Coupling of the successor to UTC isn't required, or at least
there's not consensus that it is required.
The broadcast time signals should be as uniform as is
On 02/08/2011 13:29, Steve Allen wrote:
On Tue 2011-02-08T13:14:27 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
I'd be willing to agree that Coupling of Civil time to the earth is
required. Coupling of the successor to UTC isn't required, or at least
there's not consensus that it is required.
The broadcast
Warner Losh wrote:
The current ITU proposal would have the effect of moving the coupling of the
Earth's rotation from the time that is broadcast (now called UTC) to the
timezones that local governments promulgate.
This would be chaos for anyone needing to compare timestamps in different
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Sometimes it is civil, sometimes it is military, most of the time it is
corporate.
We have frequently debated vocabulary here. This is why I suggested a glossary
would be a good idea.
Civil timekeeping has often been taken to mean something like the common
On 2011-02-08 16:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote, answering
Rob Seaman:
Civil timekeeping is a worldwide system.
No it is not.
UTC is a worldwide coorporation or worldwide coordination if you
will.
There is no international entity which can mandate what civil time
must be in any
In message 20110208202941.gg1...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen writes:
Most governments of the world are signatories to agreements which
state that Universal Time is a subdivision of the mean solar day which
ultimately produces the calendar.
What argrements are you thinking of ?
And is the averaging
Warner Losh wrote:
How would it be any different than today? Every few hundred years, the
government moves the time zone. Heck, they do that now every few years
anyway. Each government would be able to move it as they saw fit, or follow
other government's leads. If the US move and
On 02/08/2011 14:39, Rob Seaman wrote:
Warner Losh wrote:
How would it be any different than today? Every few hundred years, the
government moves the time zone. Heck, they do that now every few years anyway.
Each government would be able to move it as they saw fit, or follow other
Warner Losh replies:
A) It would be taking what is currently a doubly indirect pointer and
removing the layer in the middle. Dereferencing (converting to UTC) would
no longer return a timescale stationary with respect to the synodic day.
I don't see why it wouldn't. If you really need
On 02/08/2011 16:30, Rob Seaman wrote:
Even the olson database won't give you all the answers, but it will give you
many of them.
But you guys continue to reject Steve Allen's zoneinfo option...which
represents a system layered on a relatively static timezone DB. Punting to
local
On 02/08/2011 17:19, Steve Allen wrote:
On Tue 2011-02-08T17:03:31 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
NTP also does everything in UTC time
No, NTP does not use UTC per se.
The existing implementations make that specification misleading.
Rather, NTP uses the internationally approved broadcast time
The US financial industry regulations are changing to require
one second accuracy in the timestamps instead of 3 seconds.
http://www1.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@comp/@regis/documents/appsupportdocs/p122784.pdf
Chapter 2 is all about clock synchronization.
Note that they require Eastern
On Tue 2011-02-08T21:56:35 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
If you read the minutes of the conference, you will find that at
best it amounts to a joint proposal on terms of reference for
geographical coordinates, and that serveral questions of timekeeping
specifically a declared out of
On 8 Feb 2011, at 17:05, Gerard Ashton wrote:
Sovereign states have some degree of control over civil time; the remaining
control is
in the control of individuals, either through personal whims or voluntary
collective
action. The IAU, ITU, BIPM, ISO, and all the rest do not have control
On Wed 2011/02/09 06:25:25 -, Ian Batten wrote
in a message to: Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com,
Leap Second Discussion List leapsecs@leapsecond.com
Although that mandates access to a continuously reliable source of DST
changeover dates and offsets. It also opens the interesting
30 matches
Mail list logo
