On Sat 2006-01-07T07:39:58 +, Michael Sokolov hath writ:
http://ivan.Harhan.ORG/~msokolov/articles/leapsecs.txt
If I read it right you have reinvented Markus Kuhn's UTS as seen in
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/uts.txt
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/time/leap/
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Thompson writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Universal Time = confusing term which comes handy when trying to
manipulate discussions about leap second futures.
I have to take issue with this one.
My point was that when you just say
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
On Sat 2006-01-07T00:32:44 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
UTC
UTC(time) = TAI(time) + Leap(time)
Owned by ITU.
IERS evaluates Leap(time) according ITU definition
Not quite. The
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Sokolov writes:
http://ivan.Harhan.ORG/~msokolov/articles/leapsecs.txt
In this rather humorous document you have managed to say that POSIX
screwed up badly. We already knew that :-)
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
On Sat 2006-01-07T00:32:44 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
At the beginning of 1984 and at the beginning of 2003 the branches of
the IERS responsible for UT1 followed new IAU
Looks like the inserted the leapsecond after the minutemarker:
http://phk.freebsd.dk/Leap/20051231_HBG/
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can
Which was also noted at
http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~ptdeboer/ham/sdr/leapsecond.html
Various other LF 2005 leap second recordings are listed at
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/time/lf-clocks/#leapsec2005
Markus
--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Markus Kuhn writes:
Which was also noted at
http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~ptdeboer/ham/sdr/leapsecond.html
Right, but I think my data has a bit more resolution etc.
I'm demodulating Rugby right now (will take half a day or so)
and after that I'll go after France
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ed Davies writes:
Also, Markus wasn't proposing UTS as a civil timescale but just
for use within computer systems, etc.
What a weird concept...
Why not go the full distance and define a timescale for each
particular kind of time-piece:
Wrist Watch time
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
What a weird concept...
Why not go the full distance and define a timescale for each
particular kind of time-piece:
and give each of them their own unique way of coping with leapseconds ?
Ignoring the ridiculous parody - no, it's not a weird concept.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ed Davies writes:
Ignoring the ridiculous parody - no, it's not a weird concept.
Different timescales are useful for different purposes. Get
used to it.
I have no problems with different timescales for different purposes.
For instance I very much wish the
Hi Ed,
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
What a weird concept...
Why not go the full distance and define a timescale for each
particular kind of time-piece:
and give each of them their own unique way of coping with
leapseconds ?
Ignoring the ridiculous parody - no, it's not a weird
Ed Davies scripsit:
(There's a small difference in practice in that the UTC to
TAI conversion requires a lookup table which is not known
very far into the future whereas the Gregorian calendar is
defined algorithmically for all time.)
Well, yes. But that's a matter of verbal labels. The
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
Astronomers use UT1. Astronomers use UTC. Astronomers are among the
biggest users of TAI and GPS and likely any other timescale you care
to name.
And they certainly have a lot of trouble seeing the rest of the world
in for the brightness of
Rob Seaman scripsit:
Unless we *completely* change our notion of Canoli, Canoli is tightly
constrained to follow Eclair simply by the fact that today and
tomorrow and the million days that follow are all required to be dark
at night and light in the day.
I think you are getting carried away
Steve Allen scripsit:
The changes in the length of any kind of year are slight by comparison
to the changes in length of day. Neglecting short period variations
the length of the sidereal year has not changed much in a billion years.
That is to say, the current best approximation to the
Poul-Henning Kamp scripsit:
By your logic, the U.S. Surgeon General should be a chiropractor.
Once the US government tries to shoulder their national deficit
that would undoubtedly be a good idea.
Chiropractors are by no means cheaper to hire than other doctors.
Nor are their treatments
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 04:02:04PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ed Davies writes:
Ignoring the ridiculous parody - no, it's not a weird concept.
Different timescales are useful for different purposes. Get
used to it.
I have no problems with different
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neal McBurnett writes:
Civil time is in the hands of individual governments, and they
tend to expect their computers to use the same time as the
rest of their country.
Yes again. And they are free to choose TAI if they want a uniform
time scale. But why take
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel R. Tobias [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On 7 Jan 2006 at 16:02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
:
: Civil time is in the hands of individual governments, and they
: tend to expect their computers to use the same time as the
: rest of their country.
:
:
On Sat 2006-01-07T21:20:33 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
You can find locate your countrys ITU-R representative and contact
them with your input, just as well as I can for mine.
You can try that, and you may succeed, but it is deceptive to assert
that is easy to do.
In the US the process
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
On Sat 2006-01-07T21:20:33 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
You can find locate your countrys ITU-R representative and contact
them with your input, just as well as I can for mine.
You can try that, and you may succeed, but it is deceptive to
On Jan 7, 2006, at 11:37 AM, John Cowan wrote:Whether we choose to bleed off the daily accumulating milliseconds one second or 3600 at a time, bleed them we must...and even people who loathe the very notion of leap seconds admit this. NO, I DON'T ADMIT THAT. On the contrary, I deny it, flatly,
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:36:17AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neal McBurnett writes:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 08:32:08PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the
leapseconds with 20 years notice and only
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jan 7 08:03:04 2006
Received: from juno.usno.navy.mil (HELO [198.116.61.253]) ([198.116.61.253]) by
ivan.Harhan.ORG (5.61.1.3/1.36)
id AA14507; Sat, 7 Jan 06 08:03:03 GMT
Received: from rom.usno.navy.mil by [198.116.61.253]
via smtpd (for
Please ignore this post. It got away because I was connected to my UNIX
host from my girlfriend's PC over her cable Internet connection which is
probably the crappiest in the world as I was composing a reply to some
posts on this list, and as it crapped out on me, the mail process on the
UNIX
Steve Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I read it right you have reinvented Markus Kuhn's UTS [...]
Close to it, but...
Ed Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] followed up:
Also, Markus wasn't proposing UTS as a civil timescale but just
for use within computer systems, etc.
Therein lies the key
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this rather humorous document you have managed to say that POSIX
screwed up badly. We already knew that :-)
What does this have to do with POSIX? The word POSIX does not appear in
my article.
MS
Ed Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UTC is expressible as a real number in just the same way that
Gregorian dates (with months with different lengths and leap
days) can be with the Julian calendar.
There's no difference in principle between converting from a
TAI time in seconds since some
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Neal McBurnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I still haven't seen any good data on predictions for periods of
: longer than 9 years.
Neal,
thanks for the excellent summary of the current state of the art in
prediction.
I think this shows that a 20 year
30 matches
Mail list logo
