In addition to what John Cowan said, I'd also point out that planning
is the one of the biggest issues with leap seconds.
In terms of planning for the future, if an application cares about
local time, not knowing whether a leap second is going to happen
outside a six month window can be a much
In message 006d7a34-31d9-4492-9014-667c7b926...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen writ
es:
Please identify the operations which need one second predictability
over a time span of six months.
Wrong question.
Try: Please identify computer communications where it is not guaranteed
that all involved
In message d754ef5c-767a-4ff0-ac64-6e9543aaa...@noao.edu, Rob Seaman writes:
Instead of building computer hardware, operating systems and
applications that pretend the relentless update cycle doesn't exist,
build such systems to expect scheduled updates to software and key
data structures.
Why don't you take that idea to to Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed, the
FAA, NRC and the nuclear powerplant industry ?
When they complain, we will.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
In message: 006d7a34-31d9-4492-9014-667c7b926...@ucolick.org
Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org writes:
: I want to know why I should give up the notion of civil time being
: based on mean solar time, for myself and for posterity.
Leap-seconds, as implement, are unworkable. You can see
In message: 494d2886.5020...@cox.net
Greg Hennessy greg.henne...@cox.net writes:
: Why don't you take that idea to to Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed, the
: FAA, NRC and the nuclear powerplant industry ?
:
: When they complain, we will.
When you do business with these sorts of people,
You are under the fundamental misimpression that all systems are or
can be upgraded every 6 months. That simply isn't possible for a
large class of systems.
So everything else that follows this fundamental flaw in reasoning is
therefore fundamentally flawed.
Warner
Scroll down for my response. Context seemed important.
On Dec 20, 2008, at 11:33 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: d754ef5c-767a-4ff0-ac64-6e9543aaa...@noao.edu
Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu writes:
: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
:
: Steve Allen writes:
:
: Please identify the
Dude, I'm not representing your position at all. Assertions are
made. I respond. The current system for instance, is simply the
mechanics of the solar system. It will remain the underlying system
whatever the ITU decides. What is your position on the solar system?
I don't know.
In message 4957dfe1-9c18-4941-aa87-79e5dd429...@noao.edu, Rob Seaman writes:
Again - why are engineering best practices regarded as an annoyance?
Rob,
They are not, but they are far different from what you think
they are, and they are slavishly adhered to.
I know several astronomers,
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote to start this thread:
Please identify computer communications where it is not guaranteed
that all involved computers will have their software updated every
six months.
Presumably this was at least half humorous, but I took the chance to
point out that if this were
On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 08:03 -0800, Steve Allen wrote:
I want to know why I should give up the notion of civil time being
based on mean solar time, for myself and for posterity.
I believe the answer being argued is the aerospace and nuclear
industries would save money.
--
Ashley Yakeley
On 2008 Dec 20, at 10:55, M. Warner Losh wrote:
Either we kill them entirely, since they are going away eventually
anyway, or we put them on a regular schedule like leap years. The
current system sucks too bad to be allowed to continue.
Pardon me, but I'm missing something in this about the
13 matches
Mail list logo
