On 3 Sep 2010, at 02:28, Tony Finch wrote:
On 2 Sep 2010, at 22:03, Ian Batten i...@batten.eu.org wrote:
De facto UK time is UTC; de jure is UT, probably UT1.
De jure it is Greenwich mean time. AIUI when GMT was last
maintained as a solar timescale it did not correspond exactly to
Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Oh, do tell, where will you get your GMT reference from?
If I have trouble figuring it out myself, I'll just E-mail Rob Seaman
and ask him what time it is. Given that his views on the subject as
expressed on this list are much closer to mine than, say, PHK's, I
On 3 Sep 2010, at 08:44, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Oh, do tell, where will you get your GMT reference from?
If I have trouble figuring it out myself, I'll just E-mail Rob Seaman
and ask him what time it is.
Suppose I wish to measure 10 solar seconds from now,
On 3 Sep 2010, at 04:47, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
So you'd like to end up with an even more chaotically convoluted time
zone map than we already have? Eventually, there'd have to be
offsets from UTC of 36 or 48 hours, way beyond the theoretical +12
and -12 (already
Remember to practice safe time transfer. Always use rubber seconds.
Stay safe.
Warner
On Sep 3, 2010, at 1:46 AM, Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
And I'd point you to Steve Allen :-)
On Sep 3, 2010, at 12:44 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Oh, do tell,
On 3 Sep 2010, at 05:50, Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
I was referring to GMT broadly as the astronomical timescale and for all
practical purposes de facto the same as UTC.
My point is that if you are being precise this is nonsense. GMT in the historic
sense of a solar timescale does not
Tony Finch wrote:
On 3 Sep 2010, at 01:41, msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) wrote:
I very soon will, as soon as I get my rubber time generator working.
Oh, do tell, where will you get your GMT reference from?
If I were doing it, I would take the DUT1 projections from IERS Bulletin
A
on the SAME time. Nobody cares here that solar time and civil time
are 43 minutes off.
*I* care
but I'm not important - I'm just one person
many people might care and many people are not getting to make
the decision because the decision is being made for them.
further, it's not a
Don't disregard ITU totally here. ITU-T has UTC written into the
standards for cross-TelCo billing interfaces/protocols.
...all the implementations of those standards just use unix time.
-paul
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Zefram wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
Thanks for the informative explanation, but GMT is not and was not UT1.
Picky, picky. OK, let's look at the strictest sense of GMT, taking the
Greenwich meridian to be defined by the Royal Observatory, Greenwich,
rather than by the ITRF.
On 3 Sep 2010, at 15:45, p...@2038bug.com wrote:
Don't disregard ITU totally here. ITU-T has UTC written into the
standards for cross-TelCo billing interfaces/protocols.
...all the implementations of those standards just use unix time.
I have a dim memory, based on wrestling with one of
Ian Batten wrote:
I have a dim memory, based on wrestling with one of the *BSD's NTP
implementation in the mid 1990s, that one Unix decided to tick TAI
rather than UTC and move leap-seconds into userspace. But it's all very
dim...
The Olson timezone database has some support for this. It
In message: 20100903135619.6674.qm...@protonet.co.za
p...@2038bug.com writes:
:
: on the SAME time. Nobody cares here that solar time and civil time
: are 43 minutes off.
:
: *I* care
:
: but I'm not important - I'm just one person
So do you live on a meridian where the solar
In message: 20100903160248.ga16...@lake.fysh.org
Zefram zef...@fysh.org writes:
: Ian Batten wrote:
: I have a dim memory, based on wrestling with one of the *BSD's NTP
: implementation in the mid 1990s, that one Unix decided to tick TAI
: rather than UTC and move leap-seconds into
Tony Finch wrote:
As we have seen there are a lot of intricate
details whose necessity people can legitimately disagree about and no way
to determine an official consensus. Which is why I say that astronomical
GMT doesn't exist.
Interesting argument. I disagree with your
On Fri 2010-09-03T17:45:34 +0100, Zefram hath writ:
I don't think an official realisation of GMT is required in order
for GMT to meaningfully exist.
That means it cannot be a precision time scale, for there is
no authority to define a single realization.
What the ITU-R is righly tasked to do
On Sep 3, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
If you are syncing to what is now called GMT you are syncing to UTC because
they are now in practice exact synonyms.
And this is precisely what the ITU is planning to break. This very entrenched
assumption will no longer be valid.
Reminds me of
:
: *I* care
:
: but I'm not important - I'm just one person
So do you live [...]
here we have dst
You are already [...]
agreed
: many people might care and many people are not getting to make
: the decision because the decision is being made for them.
That decision was
On 2010-09-03, at 15:56, p...@2038bug.com wrote:
on the SAME time. Nobody cares here that solar time and civil time
are 43 minutes off.
*I* care
Warner seems to be missing (or ignoring?) the point.
The difference doesn't matter, the fact that the difference is constant does.
N
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Zefram wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
As we have seen there are a lot of intricate
details whose necessity people can legitimately disagree about and no way
to determine an official consensus. Which is why I say that astronomical
GMT doesn't exist.
In message: 67efec27-33c2-4d35-a48f-f7be2ed7d...@pipe.nl
Nero Imhard n...@pipe.nl writes:
:
: On 2010-09-03, at 15:56, p...@2038bug.com wrote:
:
: on the SAME time. Nobody cares here that solar time and civil time
: are 43 minutes off.
:
: *I* care
:
: Warner seems to be
p...@2038bug.com wrote:
Nobody cares here that solar time and civil time
are 43 minutes off.
*I* care
I do too!
but I'm not important - I'm just one person
There are TWO of us now!
many people might care and many people are not getting to make
the decision because the decision is
In message alpine.lsu.2.00.1009031840050.31...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk, Tony F
inch writes:
If the ITU change the
definition of GMT, and if the British government continues to follow ITU
recommendations and to disregard the historical astronomical meaning of
GMT, then the equivalence will
Does someone capture and archive these amazing discussions? Pardon
silly questions from a newcomer.
This kind of knowledgeable exchange is what the ITU is missing. There
are sound technical reasons for retaining or dispensing with the leap
second. They need to be exposed, and the proponent of
In message: 7a21eaec-bb0a-4966-a8db-86b084df0...@batten.eu.org
Ian Batten i...@batten.eu.org writes:
: do we
: have enough of a community of |DUT1| 1s to justify the costs to the
: rest of the world, or is it time that this crowd shoulder the costs of
: the raw data they need?
:
On Sep 3, 2010, at 12:19 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
I think that this is why the leap second proposals say they won't
disseminate DUT1 anymore. All they really mean by that, I think, is
that we'll measure it, we'll pubish it, but the time broadcasts will
reset it to '0' and users should note
On 3 Sep 2010, at 22:14, Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
Greenwich Mean Time is the Mean Solar Time in Greenwich. Is this its
historical astronomical meaning? Or is this its definition?
The former, because in current usage it is a synonym for UTC (which I do not
regard as an astronomical
On 3 Sep 2010, at 21:02, Nero Imhard n...@pipe.nl wrote:
But indeed DST has its own costly problems. The burden of moving all clocks
twice a year, made worse because every microwave and refrigerator comes with
its own clock these days (none of which are self-setting of course), falls on
28 matches
Mail list logo
