PM, Warner Losh wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5wpm-gesOY is required viewing.
Warner
On Jan 7, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
Hi,
First, this is my first posting to your list, forgive me if the subject has
been covered.
Second, I am a colleague Stephen Scott, also a new
On 2014-01-07 03:40 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52cc8c26.5090...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
I fully understand time zone specifications are fractured. My objective
is to determine what standards are most relevant currently, that is,
what standards may be considered in force
On 2014-01-07 03:58 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 7, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
Oh yes, I've see that. Noted from this list. To me its both hysterical and
deeply troubling. On the one hand, it bemuses me to see someone else's
programming pain so well presented, mirroring my own
On 2014-01-07 06:34 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Jan 7, 2014, at 7:31 PM, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
On Jan 7, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure most on this list have similar experience. Hey, we could start a
reality tv show!
Leap second war story death match
On 2014-01-07 08:23 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 7, 2014, at 9:16 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-07 06:34 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Jan 7, 2014, at 7:31 PM, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
On Jan 7, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure most on this list have
On 2014-01-08 09:34 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Wed 2014-01-08T12:11:39 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
Who, or what standards body, would have the (international)
authority to be taken seriously? I'm not sure about that, but since
the whole time-keeping mess was started out by astronomers I
Hi Magnus,
On 2014-01-09 02:11 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Hi Brooks,
Welcome to the list!
On 08/01/14 01:45, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-07 03:40 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52cc8c26.5090...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
I fully understand time zone specifications
Hi Rob,
On 2014-01-09 04:18 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote:
Well, its clear the end game would take a long time to realize. It will take
serious patience on the part of folks who care.
We’re halfway there, then ;-) This conversation
On 2014-01-09 10:28 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Thu 2014-01-09T01:56:03 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
In 2011 you posted to the list a link to the 2011 ITU-R CACE issued
Circular 539
http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs/2011-June/003058.html
Whats the current status of that? Still
Thanks very much Steve. Great info
On 2014-01-11 10:45 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Sat 2014-01-11T21:43:02 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
Any help getting to the bottom of this appreciated.
It's history, and it's confused. Measurement techniques were crude
and people were not cognizant
On 2014-01-11 11:47 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d20beb.60...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
Yes, in my opinion its unfortunate they chose to use the term UTC in
that context.
They chose UTC because they meant UTC.
I have this directly from multiple persons who were involved
On 2014-01-12 12:30 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d251b5.4060...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
4. The origin of International Atomic Time is
defined in conformance with the recommendations
of the International Astronomical Union (13th
General Assembly, Prague, 1967
On 2014-01-12 11:33 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d2e6f5.2030...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
I think I understand you. You are saying that UTC as a term for the
I'm saying that UTC is Universal Time Coordinated, such as defined
and used by telcos for a decade by the time
On 2014-01-13 09:29 AM, Michael Deckers wrote:
On 2014-01-12 03:28, Brooks Harris quoted from RFC 5905:
Then, and very importantly, Figure 4: Interesting Historic NTP Dates
states the relationship to First day UNIX
On 2014-01-15 11:36 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Thu 2014-01-16T06:55:00 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
What *has* been proposed, where I have seen it, is to remove
leap-seconds, and leave the keep civil time in sync with the sun
up to local governments who can mess
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
E) Because Leap Seconds are at the center of the kill Leap
Seconds debate,
...
we also rename (our beloved) Leap Seconds.
Respelling isn't going to fool most of the people in this debate.
Nobody is trying to fool anybody. I think there are
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
- Leap Seconds don't (theoretically) only leap - they could also drop
The word leap doesn't carry any connotation about direction.
In our world, that of television and media, is certainly does!
I think this is a really important point because it
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
C) By declaring the anchor-point to existing TAI and UTC definitions
as 1972-01-01T00:00:00Z we have imposed an *uncompensated* Gregorian
calendar counting scheme on the proleptic part of the new timescale,
making -01-01T00:00:00Z the origin of the new
On 2014-01-17 05:22 PM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes, I understand that. Perhaps using the word origin was careless.
Maybe you can suggest a better term.
proleptic. You may usefully add with astronomical year numbering to
make clear that zero and negative year numbers are valid
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our universe.
The universe is a little larger than that for the astronomers. Earth
time
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our
On 2014-01-18 01:33 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes, its new. Well, actually, NTP already defined something like it,
but here I'm trying to make it also encompass POSIX the Epoch and
1588/PTP's epoch - 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z.
Opps. Typo!
I meant 1588/PTP's epoch - 1970-01-01 00:00:00 (TAI
On 2014-01-18 02:09 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
There are ways to alter the definition of UTC and keeping within the
concept.
If you want a different concept, then it's a different time-scale. The
concept they are looking for already have an existing time-scale, but
naturally they are free
On 2014-01-18 03:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I think it is cute you lay all these plans, but how are you going to
sell your new timescale ?
I'm certainly not going to do that alone. It will take a concerted
effort by a lot of people with more credibility in the field than I.
I think its
On 2014-01-18 08:02 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
POSIX time is defined without reference to NTP, which is its own world
with its own standard. Note that the NTP standard, RFC-1305, is dated
March 1992, which is well after the first POSIX standard (1988 - the
Ugly Green Book). Nor does NTP have any
On 2014-01-18 03:07 PM, Eric R. Smith wrote:
On 2014-01-18 12:02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
[POSIX time]
...
It's defined as a transformation of a broken-down UTC timestamp, not
(despite its name) as a count of seconds since some instant.
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will
On 2014-01-18 09:29 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Brooks,
Maybe I missed it way back in the thread, but can you give me an example why
you'd want a proleptic TAI or UTC?
I'm working on revising the names and a fuller explanation, but briefly -
The idea is to declare a 1hz timeline before
On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should
On 2014-01-18 09:39 AM, Zefram wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
what is stored in the cound of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
time is used only when there is a human to be humored.
Sure, scalar time_t values are used
On 2014-01-18 01:14 PM, Peter Vince wrote:
Stephen Scott has just mentioned his involvement in the TV industry in
the USA, with its problematical 29.97 Hz frame-rate.
Lets not propogate the notion of a 29.97 Hz rate, especially in the
the context of this LEAP_SECS list. 29.97 is a commonly
On 2014-01-18 11:39 PM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Brooks Harris said:
tm_sec + tm_min*60 + tm_hour*3600 + tm_yday*86400 +
(tm_year???70)*31536000 + ((tm_year???69)/4)*86400 ???
((tm_year???1)/100)*86400 + ((tm_year+299)/400)*86400
This is an *uncompensated-for-leap-seconds* Gregorian calendar
On 2014-01-19 08:07 AM, Gerard Ashton wrote:
Date/time manipulation software sometimes converts a date expressed as day,
month, year, time to a number, as in Excel. If the number counts leap
seconds, and an event is more than 6 months in the future, it will be
necessary to search for the number
I've renamed and reorganized the proposed timescales of CCT to reflect
the responses I've gotten and to hopefully make the intentions clear. I
had used the terms proleptic UTC and proleptic TAI and these are now
renamed.
There are other important elements the CCT proposal, including counting
On 2014-01-19 08:26 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus
On 2014-01-19 11:06 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
NTP *does* refer to POSIX - Figure 4: Interesting Historic NTP Dates
refers to First day UNIX and locates it 63072000 seconds before
1972-01-01T00:00:00Z (UTC). This helps solve one problem - when,
exactly, was the POSIX the Epoch.
Ok. I meant a
On 2014-01-19 03:53 PM, Zefram wrote:
Your definitions are generally poor. There is much that you omit or
make horrendously unclear.
There really aren't any definitions yet. Its an informal email. I'd
hoped I could make a little progress without completing the entire
document. Maybe not.
On 2014-02-07 04:12 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 20140206151947.ga25...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen writes:
Taken at face value Google's Site Reliability Team would seem to be
arguing for the return to the bad old days of the rubber second.
Yeah, they're totally opposed to having
On 2014-02-12 04:36 AM, Greg Hennessy wrote:
Um, that is false. All linux kernels did not crash, in fact NONE of
mine did.
all here was an overstatement, but the impact of the leap second
should never be your kernel crashes even if your personal kernels
didn't.
You should refrain from
On 2014-02-12 07:47 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
The linux kernel has been touted by some of its proponents as the most tested
and verified kernel around. Some may quibble with this characterization, but if
not the most, certainly one of the most. And even so, this problem with leap
seconds
On 2014-02-12 08:03 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Feb 12, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-02-12 04:36 AM, Greg Hennessy wrote:
Um, that is false. All linux kernels did not crash, in fact NONE of
mine did.
all here was an overstatement, but the impact of the leap second
should
On 2014-02-12 09:46 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Feb 12, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-02-12 08:09 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
There are many much more complex computer science challenges. In fact, the
entire purpose of these things called computers is to deal efficiently
On 2014-02-12 03:53 PM, Richard Clark wrote:
Back in the 1974 oil crisis the US made an 'emergency' change to its
DST schedual. I don't recall the legal mechanism used. It was likely
an executive order from the President.
Is was an act of Congress - the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy
On 2014-02-12 01:46 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
Other systems are less open, and sweep this data under the rug is also a valid
conclusion.
There's no mystery how Windows handles Leap Seconds - it doesn't.
Its off by the Leap Second until it re-syncs to NTP.
How the Windows Time service treats a
It seems the meaning of the term Standard time in common-use and in
POSIX is in conflict with the definitions in ISO 8601 and IEC 60050-111.
Wikipedia (not always an authoritative source)
Standard time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_time
states:
Where daylight saving time is used, the
and New York daylight time 12:00:00-04:00.
Standard time in 8601 really is in conflict with common use, I think.
-Brooks
Not optimal but so little in life is.
--jh...@mit.edu
John Hawkinson
+1 617 797 0250
Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote on Sun, 16 Feb 2014
at 01:23:23 -0800 in 5300838b
On 2014-02-16 03:30 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 5300838b.8030...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
It seems the meaning of the term Standard time in common-use and in
POSIX is in conflict with the definitions in ISO 8601 and IEC 60050-111.
It seems to me that a term like Standard
On 2014-02-16 09:22 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Sun 2014-02-16T09:07:11 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
I wonder why they avoid making clear definitions of Standard time
and Daylight? Is it because previous precedent had already confused
the meanings of the terms, or maybe because they emanate
On 2014-02-16 10:32 AM, Gerard Ashton wrote:
In US law (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/260a ) the time
observed in each time zone is referred to as the standard time, even when
the time is advanced during the summer. Obviously the language of the law
differs from common usage.
On 2014-02-16 10:39 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Feb 16, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
Only a comprehensive plan which aims to fix the obvious and well known problems is going
to head off the kill Leap Seconds movement.
I think the momentum and general conservatism of the powers
On 2014-02-16 02:05 PM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Brooks Harris said:
Wikipedia (not always an authoritative source)
Standard time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_time
states:
Where daylight saving time is used, the term standard time typically
refers to the time without the offset
Does anyone know a source for the original text of the Anglo-French
Conference on Time-keeping at Sea 1917?
Thanks
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
On 2014-02-17 03:35 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Clive D.W. Feather cl...@davros.org wrote:
Brooks Harris said:
Wikipedia (not always an authoritative source)
Standard time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_time
states:
Where daylight saving time is used, the term standard time typically
refers
Theorists propose globally networked entangled atomic clock
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-theorists-globally-networked-entangled-atomic.html
-Brooks Harris
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo
At the bottom of page 521 is another link to -
Technological Challenges to Effective Market Surveillance Issues and
Regulatory Tools
http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD412.pdf
Appendix E is interesting -
Appendix E - Mechanisms and Sources for Clock Synchronization by
On 2014-07-19 06:07 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
In May the european financial market authority issued a discussion
paper with a response deadline of August 1 that suggests all
transactions be timestamped to within 1 microsecond.
the timing bits are on page 520ff of this
On 2014-08-20 10:23 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Aug 20, 2014, at 7:40 PM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote:
Since the beginning of civilization society has pursued the goal of perfect
timekeeping. UTC is one of the great intellectual achievements of mankind.
The difficulties with Leap
On 2014-08-20 11:57 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Aug 20, 2014, at 9:28 PM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote:
On 2014-08-20 10:23 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Aug 20, 2014, at 7:40 PM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com
wrote:
Since the beginning of civilization society has pursued the goal
Hi Tony,
On 2014-08-27 05:22 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote:
Its important to note 8601 is silent on how Daylight Savings Time is handled
and provides no recommendation of how it might be indicated or represented.
ISO 8601 does not represent daylight saving nor
Hi Tony,
On 2014-08-27 12:08 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Brooks Harrisbro...@edlmax.com wrote:
On 2014-08-27 05:22 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
ISO 8601 does not represent daylight saving nor time zones.
It can represent both, but incompletely, or ambiguously. The time element
called zone designator
On 2014-08-28 08:10 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message alpine.lsu.2.00.1408281021260.23...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk, Tony F
inch writes:
However for events in the future (meetings etc.) you
need to record a time and a place, because the UTC offset and time zone
rules are not
Television, cable, and internet advertising. In broadcast (including
cable) the contracts are in video frames, in the North America and other
NTSC standards countries this is on the order of +- 1/30th second (with
some small variance for technical error). Lots and lots of commercials,
lots
On 2014-10-31 11:40 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Oct 31, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Martin Burnicki martin.burni...@meinberg.de
wrote:
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 10/31/2014 02:49 AM, Sanjeev Gupta wrote:
Give it a new name, please. Independent of what the fundamental
unit is.
TAI and UTC already
Hi Micheal,
On 2014-11-03 02:43 AM, michael.deckers via LEAPSECS wrote:
On 2014-10-31 17:39, Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes. Its primary timescale, sometimes called PTP Time, more
properly the PTP
Timescale, is a TAI-like counter (uninterrupted incrementing count of
seconds). Note its origin
On 2014-11-03 02:19 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Nov 3, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote:
CAUTION about the PTP Epoch. Its not just nitpicking.
...
We've been advised by PTP experts that A) yes, its confusing, and B) most implementations use a integral-second
On 2014-11-03 03:04 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Nov 3, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote:
On 2014-11-03 02:19 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Nov 3, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com
wrote:
CAUTION about the PTP Epoch. Its not just nitpicking
On 2014-11-03 04:50 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Nov 3, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote:
On 2014-11-03 03:04 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Nov 3, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com
wrote:
On 2014-11-03 02:19 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Nov 3, 2014, at 11
On 2014-11-04 11:53 AM, Gerard Ashton wrote:
Of course Brooks Harris is free to define proleptic UTC any way he pleases
within the confines of a document he has control over, including a post to
this mailing list. But I think the term proleptic UTC, outside the
confines of a document that gives
On 2014-11-04 03:35 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Tue 2014-11-04T20:27:53 +, Zefram hath writ:
The name Coordinated Universal Time and initialism UTC are used
in the IAU 1967 resolutions, referring to the rubber-seconds system.
And that resolution explicitly refers to the content of the new
On 2014-11-04 03:27 PM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
To call it UTC seems a bit of a stretch to me,
but there's no generally accepted name for what Zefram calls
rubber-seconds era of UTC. Everybody has seized the name, and
attempted to give it some meaning other than
On 2014-11-04 04:59 PM, Zefram wrote:
I wrote:
It sounds as though Annex B may contain actual errors, in such things
as the interpretation of POSIX time_t. Good job it's not normative.
I've now seen the actual text of Annex B (thanks to an unattributable
benefactor). Here is my review of it.
Thanks, Steve, You're knowledge about the topic is deep and I thank you
for the excellent reports on your pages. Where UTC really came from
may become, or may be, a legend. -Brooks
On 2015-01-26 03:39 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Mon 2015-01-26T15:05:55 -0500, Brooks Harris hath writ
On 2015-01-26 04:34 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
I spent many weeks this year frantically trying to head off exactly this
problem in a standards body defining a timing protocol. It had been
written to insert Leap Seconds at midnight, which we know from Rec 460
is not correct.
Brooks,
Please make
On 2015-02-05 05:53 PM, Kevin Birth wrote:
If one can read Japanese (which I can do with great difficulty and veeey
slowly), one notes that the official Japanese announcement refers to the IERS
and the leap second policy, but it translates UTC 23:59:60 on June 30 into the
local time of
Hi Tom,
On 2015-02-05 09:18 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Many aspects of local time or civil time are left to common
practice which is not good enough to expect uniform inter-operable
implementations.
Brooks, can you give some examples?
I'm not sure what examples you mean, but perhaps comparing
New Research May Solve Puzzle in Sea Level's Rise
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/science/earth/new-research-may-solve-a-puzzle-in-sea-levels-rise.html
-Brooks
On 2015-01-15 06:57 AM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
That reminds me, has anybody tried to do the math on climate
It says -
Until now the solution has been to introduce a 'leap second', in other
words to stop 'official/scientific' time (Co-ordinated Universal Time,
'UTC'), for one second every so often.
Hold the phone. to stop 'official/scientific' time?!? How worrisome is
it that the chair of the
to
credibly, or officially, clarify the fundamentals.
-Brooks
On 2015-01-28 05:09 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 54c8b26d.6050...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
It says -
Until now the solution has been to introduce a 'leap second', in other
words to stop 'official
On 2015-01-28 05:49 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2015-01-28 05:31 AM, m...@lumieresimaginaire.com wrote:
Oops - that last one got away while I was trying to quit HTML!!!
Le 28.01.2015 11:09, Poul-Henning Kamp a écrit :
In message 54c8b26d.6050...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes
On 2015-01-28 05:31 AM, m...@lumieresimaginaire.com wrote:
Oops - that last one got away while I was trying to quit HTML!!!
Le 28.01.2015 11:09, Poul-Henning Kamp a écrit :
In message 54c8b26d.6050...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
It says - Until now the solution has been
The leap second, deep space and how we keep time
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/leap-second-deep-space-and-how-we-keep-time
Much less stupid than many popular reports...
-Brooks
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
On 2015-01-25 10:04 PM, G Ashton wrote:
Brooks Harris suggested ISO 8601:2004(E), 3.2.1 The Gregorian calendar as
a source about the Gregorian calendar. Thanks for the suggestion, but I
consider ISO 8601 to be garbage; it's so bad it makes me dislike the entire
organization.
I have my
On 2015-01-26 01:00 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
At midnight is a flexible enough phrase to also handle a second that
*finishes* being introduced at the stroke of midnight :-)
I'm sure you know this as well as anyone, but I caution about the casual
use of terms this way.
I spent many weeks this
On 2015-01-23 10:33 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Steffen Nurpmeso said:
| Well. PHK follows the IERS format which uses the 1st of the month
| after the leap second, i.e., the second after the leap occurred.
|
|This is an implementation detail. PHK???s choice is as good as the other.
Hi Rob,
On 2015-01-12 06:42 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Martin Burnicki martin.burni...@meinberg.de
wrote:
I've suggested at various occasions that the IERS should be the authoritative
source for a leap second file.
There were discussions at both the 2013 and 2011
On 2015-01-12 02:03 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
If would really be good if there was one authoritative soure for this,
and that there was a uniform format. Ideally there would be multiple
ways to access it, via text and binary for different architectures. The
might be thought of as a UTC Metadata
This year's Y2K: 'Leap second' threatens to break the Internet
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/13/technology/leap-second/index.html
-Brooks
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
IERS publishes this - Its up to date (includes 2014-07-01) as of today
as I access it (2015-01-12).
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/bul/bulc/Leap_Second_History.dat
I'm not sure when it was updated, maybe with their Bullitin C announcement.
ftp://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/bul/bulc/bulletinc.dat
If
Opps, sorry, typo - 2015 not 2014 = Its up to date (includes 2015-07-01)
On 2015-01-12 10:33 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
IERS publishes this - Its up to date (includes 2014-07-01) as of today
as I access it (2015-01-12).
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/bul/bulc/Leap_Second_History.dat
I'm
On 2015-03-09 08:40 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote:
On 2015-03-07 03:01 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
I would say that the intent NTP and POSIX is to correspond to civil
time in contemporary use. Therefore, for dates before 1972-01-01
NTP and POSIX are counting seconds
On 2015-03-09 02:10 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
leap59 and leap61 are Leap Second announce signals, set 12 hours prior
to the insert. There has been discussion about when the official
announcements and expiration should be announced. ITU Rec 460 says
...at least eight weeks in advance. PTP can't do
Overall he seems to make a good philosophical argument why solar time is
good for humans. But his conclusion seems confused.
... let the airlines and the Internet companies use TAI.
Ah, the airlines already use GPS (TAI-like) for navigation, and local
civil time for scheduling, while the
that, but here I'll try to quickly answer your comments.
On 2015-03-05 01:29 PM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
The first part of that sentence is correct The PTP epoch is 1
January 1970 00:00:00 TAI. But the second part, which is 31
December 1969 23:59:51.18 UTC, is not, or, is at least very
On 2015-03-08 03:43 PM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2015-03-08 12:45 PM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
In PTP, at the PTP Epoch, 1970-01-01T00:00:00 (TAI), currentUtcOffset
= 10s.
Where do you get this idea from? You've cited no source for it.
You appear to have plucked
On 2015-03-08 05:00 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Mar 8, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote:
I think the only way the industry can eventually converge on reliable civil time representation
is to refine the underlying time mechanisms in POSIX in some manner that allows
On 2015-03-06 08:30 PM, Paul Hirose wrote:
On 2015-03-06 11:04, Brooks Harris wrote:
The rubber-band era is
just entirely irrelevant. Its historically interesting, and may be
required for some special application concerning that period, but for
practical UTC-like timekeeping its just
Hi Gerard,
On 2015-03-07 12:04 PM, G Ashton wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote on Saturday, March 7, 2015 11:50 :
.
.
The challenge I'm trying to solve is to provide a deterministic timekeeping
and labeling scheme for date and time *after* 1972-01-01T00:00:00Z (UTC) =
1972-01-01T00:00:10 (TAI
Hi Tom,
On 2015-03-12 09:50 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Brooks wrote:
Many timekeeping systems seem to be designed for only indicating now
counting forward, including NTP, POSIX, and PTP, taking short-cuts to
avoid supplying full Leap Second and local-time metadata.
Warner wrote:
A clock doesn’t
On 2015-03-12 11:57 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 12 March 2015 at 05:21, Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
On Wed 2015-03-11T11:04:57 -0700, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
The entire purpose of UTC is to provide a single timescale for all
human-related activity.
And UTC has failed miserably.
Hi Tom,
On 2015-03-12 02:57 AM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Brooks,
A couple more comments on your questions.
Many timekeeping systems seem to be designed for only indicating now
counting forward, including NTP, POSIX, and PTP, taking short-cuts to
avoid supplying full Leap Second and local-time
On 2015-03-04 07:28 AM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
|http://gpsworld.com/beidou-numbering-presents-leap-second-issue/
Ok, but if engineers don't even get enough time from the business
people to read manuals before they code the software then all bets
are
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
