On 2015-03-06 11:04, Brooks Harris wrote:
The rubber-band era is
just entirely irrelevant. Its historically interesting, and may be
required for some special application concerning that period, but for
practical UTC-like timekeeping its just an historical curiosity.
This fact is somewhat more
Paul,
Paul Hirose writes:
I distribute a Windows astronomical toolbox DLL which includes time
scale conversions. Since astronomy often requires analysis of old
data, the DLL can deal with pre-1972 UTC. I won't get into the dispute
over whether or not that's bona fide UTC! However, the IERS
On Sat 2015-03-07T02:02:12 +, Harlan Stenn hath writ:
When we get a bit more down the road with NTF's General Timestamp API,
I'd appreciate your taking a look at what we're doing and helping out in
any way you are up for. One of the issues that will need more attention
is pre-1972 stuff.
Hi Zefram,
Your focus on epochs is unhealthy.
I don't claim to be any more healthy than the many other folks I've had
these discussions with, most of whom are *obsessed* with, and *insistent
upon*, specifying a known *immovable* epoch.
I think I could characterize your focus on using
On Fri 2015-03-06T21:37:42 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
So it isn't outside the realm of possibilities that you'd have people making
measurements
from the late 60's till 1972 using UTC (and yes, it did exist in a practical
form
before 1972, just not in the current form and the common usage
On Mar 6, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
On Sat 2015-03-07T02:02:12 +, Harlan Stenn hath writ:
When we get a bit more down the road with NTF's General Timestamp API,
I'd appreciate your taking a look at what we're doing and helping out in
any way you are up for.
On Mar 6, 2015, at 9:57 PM, Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
On Fri 2015-03-06T21:37:42 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
So it isn't outside the realm of possibilities that you'd have people making
measurements
from the late 60's till 1972 using UTC (and yes, it did exist in a practical
