[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2005-01-19 20:19 UTC:
A resolution was proposed to redefine UTC by replacing leap seconds by leap
hours, effective at a specific date which I believe was something like 2020.
Thanks for the update!
Did the proposed resolution contain any detailed political provisions
Markus Kuhn said:
A resolution was proposed to redefine UTC by replacing leap seconds by leap
hours, effective at a specific date which I believe was something like 2020.
[...]
If this proposal gets accepted, then someone will have to shoulder the
burden and take responsibility for a gigantic
Markus Kuhn scripsit:
In my eyes, a UTC leap hour is an unrealistic phantasy.
I agree. But the same effects can be achieved by waiting for local
jurisdictions to change the existing LCT offsets as the problem becomes
locally serious. They've done it many times in the past and can easily
do so
Clive D.W. Feather scripsit:
That *is* practical to implement, though coordination might be harder. On
the other hand, adminstrative areas that are near the edge of a zone now
could move earlier if they wanted. The world is used to time zones, after
all.
For that matter, Newfoundland could
Clive D.W. Feather wrote on 2005-01-20 12:34 UTC:
A resolution was proposed to redefine UTC by replacing leap seconds by leap
hours, effective at a specific date which I believe was something like
2020.
I may be wrong here, but I thought the leap hour idea did *not* insert a
On Thu 2005-01-20T13:39:58 +, Markus Kuhn hath writ:
That was certainly the idea of the BIPM proposal presented at the Torino
meeting.
As seen on my online bibliography web page, the proposal probably was
a slightly evolved form of this document
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Cowan writes:
Markus Kuhn scripsit:
In my eyes, a UTC leap hour is an unrealistic phantasy.
I think your critizism of it is just as unrealistic.
If 600 years down the road we have colonized the solar system, then a
large fraction of the population wouldn't
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tom Van Baak writes:
If one uses the rough but often-quoted figure of
one leap second about every 500 days then
a leap hour would be required on the order of
500 * 3600 / 365 = ~5000 years from now.
It's not a linear curve, it's quadratic. I found some
slides from
On Thu 2005-01-20T09:33:01 -0800, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
So it's safe to say we're talking millennia rather
than centuries, yes? I wonder where the notion
that it's just a few centuries away came from.
If there is something not clear in the presentation on
Tom Van Baak wrote on 2005-01-20 17:33 UTC:
No one can know for sure but I was wondering if
there is a consensus on when the first leap hour
would occur?
A good table summary of some projections is in
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/dutc.html#dutctable
and other discussions are on
It's not a linear curve, it's quadratic. I found some
slides from the torino meeting where this was laid out very
well but I didn't save the URL, sorry.
Ah, yes, I forgot the quadratic term. Steve Allen has
a nice page at:
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/dutc.html
And his table shows
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
On Thu 2005-01-20T09:33:01 -0800, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
So it's safe to say we're talking millennia rather
than centuries, yes? I wonder where the notion
that it's just a few centuries away came from.
If there is something not clear in the
On Thu 2005-01-20T12:34:09 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
I may be wrong here, but I thought the leap hour idea did *not* insert a
discontinuity into UTC. Rather, in 2600 (or whenever it is), all civil
administrations would move their local-UTC offset forward by one hour,
in many cases
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
In the hopes of enlightenment for this list, but without the ability
to authenticate these draft documents, I offer the following:
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/SRG7Afinalreport.doc
Steve Allen scripsit:
If there is something not clear in the presentation on
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/dutc.html
I would be obliged to know about it.
It's very clear and useful. But:
At Torino the proponents of omitting leap seconds supposed that the
governments of the world
I keep trying to find time to generate a reply to all the points raised
(yet again) during this go-around. New messages keep arriving in the
mean time (a phrase that appears to be under attack). Thanks to
Demetrios Matsakis for keeping us informed. Thanks to Markus Kuhn for
doing a nice job of
Rob Seaman scripsit:
What exact future systems are we discussing that will both 1) require
the use of Universal Time and 2) not require a definition of Universal
Time that is tied to the rotating Earth?
*sigh*
LCT is currently tied to UTC, and converting a count of SI seconds to
a UTC time
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
Given that the average western citizen under 30 years already today
can barely add up three items in the supermarket without resorting to
their mobile phones built in calculator today, I think you can
safely assume that you can do anything to
John Cowan replies to my question:
What exact future systems are we discussing that will both 1) require
the use of Universal Time and 2) not require a definition of
Universal Time that is tied to the rotating Earth?
LCT is currently tied to UTC, and converting a count of SI seconds to
a UTC time
Rob Seaman scripsit:
b) Currently the tables are maintained and updated by members of the
precision timing community who should indeed be commended for their
excellent work over the last quarter century and more. The proposal on
the table would require all 6+ billion of us to keep his or her
Poul-Henning Kamp replies:
The major problem with leapseconds in computer systems is that they do
not happen often enough to be testable,
The current UTC standard allows scheduling leap seconds monthly. Is
that frequent enough for you? The question isn't whether a leap second
occurs. The
21 matches
Mail list logo
