Rob Seaman said:
No reasonable standard can be based on constraining the behavior of our
descendants 600 years hence.
In what way is the requirement |DUT| = 0.9s not constraining the
behaviour of our descendants 600 years hence?
While I understand your argument about the name UTC:
* *EVERY*
John Cowan says:
Secular changes in time zones (if by time zone you mean LCT - UTC,
as I suppose) are something we already know how to handle, as they
must be taken into account when determining historical UTC/GMT to LCT
conversion. Indeed, some countries jigger the dates of their
semiannual time
Rob Seaman scripsit:
Ad hoc is not a synonym for secular. I'm pleased to see someone
other than the astronomers in this conversation using the word secular,
but there continues to be a fundamental confusion of Daylight Saving
clock adjustments (periodic) with the silly notion of leap hours
On Wed 2005-02-23T23:02:14 -0800, Steve Allen hath writ:
[ the New South Wales bill ]
defines UTC as being determined by the BIPM.
So it remains unclear who ultimately controls the fate of civil time
in New South Wales.
There is sociology behind this statement.
W. Lewandowski is Principal
There have been genuinely secular changes in zone, call them silly or
not: Pacific/Enderbury (Phoenix Islands Time) changed its time zone
from -11:00 to +13:00 in 1995, and Asia/Kashgar (extreme
western China) changed its time zone from -5:00 to -8:00 in 1980-05
(its LMT is 5:03:56).
Not silly -
UTC is a useful approximation to GMT.
Rob, this will always be true, won't it? Whether you
have 100 ms time step adjustments, or 100 x e-10
rate adjustments, leap seconds, or leap hours it
seems to me there has been and will always be an
honest attempt to coordinate the two scales.
The
Tom Van Baak scripsit:
Rob, this will always be true, won't it? Whether you
have 100 ms time step adjustments, or 100 x e-10
rate adjustments, leap seconds, or leap hours it
seems to me there has been and will always be an
honest attempt to coordinate the two scales.
No, no. Leap hours are
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Markus Kuhn writes:
It seems that apart from the English versions, they all use an
equivalent of either the French temps universel (universal time) or
the German Weltzeit (world time). Oddly, of the ones I checked, only
the Danish version explicitely mentiones UTC.
Steve Allen writes:
Australia has decided to redefine its legal time scale.
http://abc.net.au/science/news/space/SpaceRepublish_1307267.htm
The last line in the article implies other jurisdictions are doing the
same. The exact text of the laws would be interesting in order to see
whether they
On Tue 2005-02-22T18:27:36 -0800, Steve Allen hath writ:
Australia has decided to redefine its legal time scale.
The bill was introduced today.
Details of Bill 11 are found here.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/isys/isyswebext.exe?op=geturi=/isysquery/irl66ce/1/doc/#hit1
The text of
Australia has decided to redefine its legal time scale.
http://abc.net.au/science/news/space/SpaceRepublish_1307267.htm
The last line in the article implies other jurisdictions are doing the
same. The exact text of the laws would be interesting in order to see
whether they intend that UTC be
11 matches
Mail list logo
