On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our universe.
The universe is a little larger than that
On 18 Jan 2014, at 07:18, Clive D.W. Feather cl...@davros.org wrote:
Removing future leap seconds won't change the legal definition of the word
day anywhere. What it does mean is that, in countries using UTC as part
of the legal definition, the centre of the night will drift away from 00:00
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our
On 2014-01-18 01:33 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes, its new. Well, actually, NTP already defined something like it,
but here I'm trying to make it also encompass POSIX the Epoch and
1588/PTP's epoch - 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z.
Opps. Typo!
I meant 1588/PTP's epoch - 1970-01-01 00:00:00 (TAI).
On 18/01/14 10:41, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
days, weeks, months, years [...]
As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t
Brooks Harris wrote:
The best I'd thought of so far was Proleptic TAI and Proleptic
UTC, but I agree those concepts along that portion of the timescale
may want their own names.
If those columns of the table refer to your proleptic extensions of
these time scales, then in principle it's valid to
In message 52da8247.70...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
but about what Universal in UTC actually means.
What it *meant*.
That may not be the same thing people mean these days, when they
plunk down robots on different pieces of orbital debris.
Remember: Standards should be
On 2014-01-18 06:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
days, weeks, months, years
In message 52da845e.4000...@hfx.eastlink.ca, Eric R. Smith writes:
As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t does not do that.
Doesn't it? If POSIX time_t were in fact a count of SI seconds since the
epoch then the nature of the leap second problem would be quite
different. time_t uses at
On 2014-01-18 10:21, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da845e.4000...@hfx.eastlink.ca, Eric R. Smith writes:
As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t does not do that.
Doesn't it? If POSIX time_t were in fact a count of SI seconds since the
epoch then the nature of the leap second
In message 52da9966.6010...@hfx.eastlink.ca, Eric R. Smith writes:
In the rationale there is a discussion of leap seconds, including the
charming statement:
...most systems are probably not synchronized to any standard time
reference. Therefore, it is inappropriate to require that a time
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:37:36 +, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
The whole purpose of TAI is
a realization of TT, right? TAI shields us (I mean us normal
computer people, not astronomers or cosmologists) from the details of
how TAI is maintained
On Sat 2014-01-18T07:18:01 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
Will the delegates from other nations
simply reject a proposal which is rooted in and strongly pushed by the
military needs of the USA?
What's the basis of this assertion?
The admonition from USNO to its folks attending the
On 18 Jan 2014, at 11:28, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
For instance I doubt you'll find any UK politician willing to push
a s/GMT/$whatever/ legislation since that will just feed the UKIP
trolls and become a factor in the Scottish independence referendum.
I'm not sure that's
On Jan 18, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 10:41, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should not attempt to be using concepts like
In message 20140118161657.ga1...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen writes:
The ITU-R's only options are:
UTC with leap seconds (status quo)
and
a new time scale which is continuous in value to the current
UTC at the instant of change from old to new (no leap at
the transition)
Says you
In message 71d95256-adee-4323-ade4-b945643ab...@batten.eu.org, Ian Batten wri
tes:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 11:28, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
For instance I doubt you'll find any UK politician willing to push
a s/GMT/$whatever/ legislation since that will just feed the UKIP
On 2014-01-18 02:09 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
There are ways to alter the definition of UTC and keeping within the
concept.
If you want a different concept, then it's a different time-scale. The
concept they are looking for already have an existing time-scale, but
naturally they are free
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
what is stored in the cound of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
time is used only when there is a human to be humored.
Sure, scalar time_t values are used underneath, and I didn't say
otherwise.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:39:00 +, Zefram wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
what is stored is the count of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
time is used only when there is a human to be humored.
Sure, scalar time_t
Most recent posts have tried to disect the past. This is about the use
of time now and in the future.
_*UTC and Leap Seconds*_
The basis of my understanding is that UTC is a timescale that:
-progresses at a rate of the second (SI) and has done so since
1972-01-01.
-is expressed as a
Ian Batten said:
Certainly, if Scotland
does opt for independence (on current polling and betting it seems unlikely,
but
let's suppose) the pressure for England to move to CET will increase.
There's some confusion
as to whether the proposal would be moving the UK to UTC+1/UTC+2 as
On Jan 18, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Stephen Scott wrote:
Most recent posts have tried to disect the past. This is about the use of
time now and in the future.
UTC and Leap Seconds
The basis of my understanding is that UTC is a timescale that:
-progresses at a rate of the second (SI) and has
Stephen Scott has just mentioned his involvement in the TV industry in the
USA, with its problematical 29.97 Hz frame-rate. I also work in the TV
industry, but in the UK where we are lucky to have a nice integer 25 Hz
rate. Although historically we still had a problem with leap seconds, as
the
On 2014-01-18 03:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I think it is cute you lay all these plans, but how are you going to
sell your new timescale ?
I'm certainly not going to do that alone. It will take a concerted
effort by a lot of people with more credibility in the field than I.
I think its
On Sat 2014-01-18T13:25:58 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
LEAP_SECS list provides a unique forum for discussion.
Yet LEAPSECS is like all the recorded discussions among various
international agencies: no consensus. The folks who are determining
policy among the various national bodies that
Good to see that enthusiastic discussions continue :-) Those new to the list
might review previous threads that touch on all the recent talking points. See
under discussions near the bottom of:
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/links.html
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:54 AM,
On 2014-01-18 12:02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
[POSIX time]
...
It's defined as a transformation of a broken-down UTC timestamp, not
(despite its name) as a count of seconds since some instant.
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
what is stored in the cound of
On 2014-01-18 16:14, Peter Vince wrote:
Stephen Scott has just mentioned his involvement in the TV industry in
the USA, with its problematical 29.97 Hz frame-rate. I also work in
the TV industry, but in the UK where we are lucky to have a nice
integer 25 Hz rate. Although historically we
On 2014-01-18 08:02 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
POSIX time is defined without reference to NTP, which is its own world
with its own standard. Note that the NTP standard, RFC-1305, is dated
March 1992, which is well after the first POSIX standard (1988 - the
Ugly Green Book). Nor does NTP have any
On 2014-01-18 03:07 PM, Eric R. Smith wrote:
On 2014-01-18 12:02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
[POSIX time]
...
It's defined as a transformation of a broken-down UTC timestamp, not
(despite its name) as a count of seconds since some instant.
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will
On 18 January 2014 23:11, Stephen Scott stephensc...@videotron.ca wrote:
Is there any attempt to maintain the PAL 8-field sequence when aligning
the timestamps with clock time?
Yes. The specification defines which seconds start with a field 1,
however, the time code signal must also be
Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
|Leap seconds are evil and must die, leaving alignment to the \
You know, i shouldn't speak up here; but what i am missing as
a C++/C/ programmer is the possibility to actually know the true
context, and work with it. I.e., clock_gettime(CLOCK_TAI) and
A while back a list member asked about how legal rules about time would
affect the year shown on a person's birth certificate for a person born near
midnight December 31 / January 1. As a volunteer emergency medical
technician, I have been trained in field childbirth. The EMS state protocol
gives
On Jan 18, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Steffen (Daode) Nurpmeso wrote:
Those applications which do care about leap seconds can determine
how to handle them in whatever way those applications feel is
best.
The problem is that all applications should care about leap seconds. It is a
part of the
The problem is that all applications should care about leap seconds.
It is a part of the time standard (UTC) that is papered over in POSIX time_t.
This is a false partitioning, and what causes the probelms.
Warner,
All applications should care? It's that going a bit too far? What, are you
Brooks,
Maybe I missed it way back in the thread, but can you give me an example why
you'd want a proleptic TAI or UTC?
/tvb
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
On 2014-01-18 09:29 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Brooks,
Maybe I missed it way back in the thread, but can you give me an example why
you'd want a proleptic TAI or UTC?
I'm working on revising the names and a fuller explanation, but briefly -
The idea is to declare a 1hz timeline before
On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should
On Sat 2014-01-18T22:03:03 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
Broken-down POSIX time is a YY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss representation - a
*calendar* date-time.
POSIX behaves as an *uncompensated-for-Leap-Seconds* Gregorian
calendar counting scheme.
A calendar, made up of days, which because of the leap
On 2014-01-18 09:39 AM, Zefram wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
what is stored in the cound of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
time is used only when there is a human to be humored.
Sure, scalar time_t values are used
Rob Seaman said:
Systems, software and civilization depend on both interval time and Earth
orientation time.
In what way does civilization depend on Earth orientation time? Given that
existing locations have local time several *hours* away from solar time,
this seems unlikely.
--
Clive D.W.
On 2014-01-18 01:14 PM, Peter Vince wrote:
Stephen Scott has just mentioned his involvement in the TV industry in
the USA, with its problematical 29.97 Hz frame-rate.
Lets not propogate the notion of a 29.97 Hz rate, especially in the
the context of this LEAP_SECS list. 29.97 is a commonly
Brooks Harris said:
tm_sec + tm_min*60 + tm_hour*3600 + tm_yday*86400 +
(tm_year???70)*31536000 + ((tm_year???69)/4)*86400 ???
((tm_year???1)/100)*86400 + ((tm_year+299)/400)*86400
This is an *uncompensated-for-leap-seconds* Gregorian calendar counting
scheme with an artificially imposed
46 matches
Mail list logo
