Rob,
Rob Seaman skrev:
Magnus Danielson wrote:
It's like the leap second. I notice that they go by, but I actually
spent the time seeing a good movie and find it in the logs afterwards.
That is kind of the point.
Be careful not to act as a judge of what others actually meant, you
yourself might have not fully understood what they meant,
Indeed. For instance, we have no clue what the ITU is really trying to
do. Since the ITU isn't bothering to justify their behavior with things
like plans and risk analyses, we're left to interpret tea leaves.
The particular study group of ITU-R (and not the whole of ITU) is of
interest here as to what "they" are attempting to study and achieve. As
with any standard group I don't think they have one single unified idea
and purpose, but rather they have a particular agenda they are studying
and I assume they perceive it as an open process within their context.
We have only a fractional access to the contributions and discussions.
The time_t is not as good time-scale as people imagine and this we
need to know and deal with it.
I don't think anybody here imagines time_t to be very well designed.
There is nothing to disagree with in either your or Zefram's messages.
Well, the celebration of a particular datum of a particular time-scale
which is ambigous shows that people are not aware of these issues. Maybe
most of the people subscribing to this particular list is aware of it,
but there is sufficiently many that does not know of it.
The naiveness lies in the lack of experience of what to come from say
firing the stun-gun and is mainly used in a concerned way.
Ah! That's what the ITU is trying to do!
I take this as a humoristic attempt to denote what the particular study
group of ITU-R is working on, correct?
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
