In message <[email protected]>, Nero Imhard writes: >On 2008-12-31, at 00:02, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> TAI is only a paperclock > >And how is UTC not a "paperclock" as well? UTC is only known after the >fact, when the BIPM publishes its analysis of comparisons between >various renditions of UTC.
The pure UTC is a paper clock like TAI, but there are plenty of "real" UTC's to be had. UTC has local implementations, such as UTC(PTB), UTC(USNO), UTC(NIST), which are disseminated to the public via networks and radio signals. The fact that TAI and UTC is an integer number of seconds apart, makes the distinction between UTC and TAI as being more or less a paper-clock a _very_ academic discussion. Time-lords make a point about it nontheless: whenever somebody talks about using TAI for something, they state in no uncertain terms that this is not to be done. Poul-Henning -- 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 adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
