>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 ivan.Harhan.ORG [208.221.139.1]) with SMTP; 7 Jan 2006 
08:10:46 UT
Received: from ROM (rom.usno.navy.mil [10.1.4.27])
        by rom.usno.navy.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k077o0kU019926;
        Sat, 7 Jan 2006 08:02:52 GMT
Received: from ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL by ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
          1.8e) with spool id 0549 for LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL; Sat, 7 Jan
          2006 08:02:52 +0000
Received: from TS-FW.usno.navy.mil (TS-FW.usno.navy.mil [10.1.1.3]) by
          rom.usno.navy.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id k0782pkM019980 for
          <LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL>; Sat, 7 Jan 2006 08:02:52 GMT
Received: from santo.ucolick.org ([128.114.23.204]) by TS-FW.usno.navy.mil via
          smtpd (for rom.usno.navy.mil [10.1.4.27]) with SMTP; 7 Jan 2006
          08:10:36 UT
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ucolick.org (Postfix)
          with ESMTP id 475575D715 for <LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL>; Sat,  7
          Jan 2006 00:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from geneva.ucolick.org (geneva.ucolick.org [128.114.23.183]) (using
          TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client
          certificate requested) by smtp.ucolick.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id
          D9F7C11419 for <LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL>; Sat,  7 Jan 2006
          00:02:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from geneva.ucolick.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by geneva.ucolick.org
          (8.13.1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k0782ofC025400 for
          <LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL>; Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:02:50 -0800
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by geneva.ucolick.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) 
id
          k0782oFP025399 for LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL; Sat, 7 Jan 2006
          00:02:50 -0800
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:02:50 -0800
From: Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Leap Second Discussion List <LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: The real problem with leap seconds
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Status: RO

On Sat 2006-01-07T07:39:58 +0000, 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/
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/time/leap/utc-torino-slides.pdf

--
Steve Allen                 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory        Natural Sciences II, Room 165    Lat  +36.99858
University of California    Voice: +1 831 459 3046           Lng -122.06014
Santa Cruz, CA 95064        http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/     Hgt +250 m

>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jan  7 12:28:40 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 AA14637; Sat, 7 Jan 06 12:28:38 GMT
Received: from rom.usno.navy.mil by [198.116.61.253]
          via smtpd (for ivan.Harhan.ORG [208.221.139.1]) with SMTP; 7 Jan 2006 
12:36:23 UT
Received: from ROM (rom.usno.navy.mil [10.1.4.27])
        by rom.usno.navy.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k07BLaki031306;
        Sat, 7 Jan 2006 12:28:29 GMT
Received: from ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL by ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
          1.8e) with spool id 0583 for LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL; Sat, 7 Jan
          2006 12:28:28 +0000
Received: from TS-FW.usno.navy.mil (TS-FW.usno.navy.mil [10.1.1.3]) by
          rom.usno.navy.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id k07CSRkM032500 for
          <LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL>; Sat, 7 Jan 2006 12:28:28 GMT
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk ([213.162.97.75]) by TS-FW.usno.navy.mil via
          smtpd (for rom.usno.navy.mil [10.1.4.27]) with SMTP; 7 Jan 2006
          12:36:12 UT
Received: from [192.168.26.3] (213-162-103-78.edmund434.adsl.metronet.co.uk
          [213.162.103.78]) by smtp.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
          id 72B0F408240 for <LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL>; Sat,  7 Jan 2006
          12:28:18 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 12:28:20 +0000
From: Ed Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Leap Seconds Issues <LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] The real problem with leap seconds
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
            <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Status: RO

Steve Allen wrote:
> On Sat 2006-01-07T07:39:58 +0000, 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/
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/time/leap/utc-torino-slides.pdf

That's my reading too, except that Markus proposed batches of
about 1000 UTS seconds either approximately 1.001 or 0.999 SI
seconds long which seems like a better idea to me.

Also, Markus wasn't proposing UTS as a civil timescale but just
for use within computer systems, etc.

Ed.

Reply via email to