Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

On 30 Dec 2008 at 2:19, Tony Finch wrote: > in fact the variation of sunrise matters much more than the > variation of midday. And the use of daylight saving / summer time actually brings the time of sunrise closer to constancy in places that use it, so in a sense this actually underscores the

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Rob Seaman wrote: > > And I really will spare folks my other screed on civil timekeeping > having nothing to do with local apparent solar time. Since everybody > seems to agree on this point, I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. I don't agree. I think the sun in the sky is wh

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In contrast to this, nobody, including you, seem to be willing to > even hazard a guess what level of presision is required or sufficient > for the "earth orientation clock". Well we obviously need to know earth orientation to quite high precision

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote at 22:30 + on Dec 29, 2008: > http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm Love that site. Steve's and Tom's sites (among others) come in handy, but that one made me laugh. John - lurker ___ LEAPSECS mailin

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message <3326254a-dd7a-40e6-a014-3958344aa...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes: >My apologies for the long reply. No apologies for the short reply. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.or

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message: <20081229165202.gp2...@fysh.org> Zefram writes: : Richard B. Langley wrote: : >How accurate : >are the predictions (especially the long-term ones) really? : >One would have to compare : >one of the historical empirical functions with actual UT1 data. : : We discussed this

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

Richard B. Langley wrote: >How accurate >are the predictions (especially the long-term ones) really? >One would have to compare >one of the historical empirical functions with actual UT1 data. We discussed this in 2007-01 in a thread titled "UT1 confidence". No firm answers were forthcoming regard

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

I think IERS Bulletin A might represent the current state of the art for predicting Earth orientation. It is produced by USNO. Latest bulletin is here: . It provides a table of UT1-UTC values to the end of 2009. It also provides an

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

My apologies for the long reply. The personal attacks reached a tipping point. Others should feel free to skip this (as I'm sure they do all my messages :-) Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Rob Seaman writes: Just one comment. The requirements for "timing applications" (of whatever precision)

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message <67c8553c-1504-495b-ac99-6e006e0cc...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes: >Just one comment. The requirements for "timing applications" (of >whatever precision) are distinct from the requirements for civil clock >applications. You seem to think "civil clock applications" is little old l

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Rob Seaman writes: Focus on the SI second and we see the world through atomic eyeballs. Focus on the primacy of the definition of the day in civil timekeeping, and Earth orientation pops out. Both timescales are necessary. It is well documented that the SI seco

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message: <05ed4e1c-dc79-4f30-bd03-69a48940d...@noao.edu> Rob Seaman writes: : Maybe we can just call it "Celsius time" and make a Celsius second : equal to 9/5 of a civil second (as of 1820). hahahhahaha... Of course, the unit of time would have to be the Newcomb.. Warner _

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

Michael Sokolov wrote: But civil time *is* a low-precision timing application! Civil time is not a timing application. It is not an application at all. Whatever the past or future of civil timescales, these form infrastructure that applications are built upon. Precision is one of many

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

M. Warner Losh wrote: Michael Sokolov writes : M. Warner Losh wrote: : : > I know that nobody is proposing rubber seconds today. : : Wrong! I am! I don't think that's a viable thing to do. It would play havoc with anything except the most low-precision timing applications. And if you don'

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

On 29 Dec 2008 at 0:02, Michael Sokolov wrote: > M. Warner Losh wrote: > > > I know that nobody is proposing rubber seconds today. > > Wrong! I am! To the tune of the Rubber Duckie Song: http://rubaduck.com/articles/rubber-duckie-song.htm Rubber Second you´re the one, You make timekeeping lo

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message: <0812290017.aa16...@ivan.harhan.org> msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote: : : > I don't think that's a viable thing to do. It would play havoc with : > anything except the most low-precision timing applications. : : But civil time *i

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

M. Warner Losh wrote: > I don't think that's a viable thing to do. It would play havoc with > anything except the most low-precision timing applications. But civil time *is* a low-precision timing application! > And if > you don't solve the problem for high-precision timing applications, > I'm

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message: <0812290002.aa16...@ivan.harhan.org> msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote: : : > I know that nobody is proposing rubber seconds today. : : Wrong! I am! I don't think that's a viable thing to do. It would play havoc with anything exc

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message: <0812282316.aa15...@ivan.harhan.org> msoko...@ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) writes: : Rob Seaman wrote: : : > However, nobody has been arguing for rubber seconds. : : I have consistently been arguing for rubber seconds! Just like rubber bullets, they are less lethal

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

M. Warner Losh wrote: > I know that nobody is proposing rubber seconds today. Wrong! I am! MS ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message: <1fb1c7f7-95f4-450a-b823-349aba3b8...@noao.edu> Rob Seaman writes: : However, nobody has been arguing for rubber seconds. (Except on : extremely long timescales exceeding the current age of civilization on : Earth.) Your assertion is a straw man: : : http://www

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

Rob Seaman wrote: > However, nobody has been arguing for rubber seconds. I have consistently been arguing for rubber seconds! MS ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message <1fb1c7f7-95f4-450a-b823-349aba3b8...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes: >The real observation is the familiar one of dual timescales. Focus on >the SI second and we see the world through atomic eyeballs. Focus on >the primacy of the definition of the day in civil timekeeping, and >E

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

M. Warner Losh wrote: the die was cast on this in 1958 when the second was defined in terms of atomic behavior. This may not be the best choice of idiom. "The die is cast" is what Caesar is supposed to have said as he crossed the Rubicon (another phrase you could use in the sentence abov

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, David Malone wrote: > > Broad agreement and consensus is the foundation of civil time. The way > > that leap seconds work clearly does not have enough consensus, in that > > people still produce software and standards and specifications that > > are incompatible with leap seco

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

> Firstly: The history shows that almost any violence can be done to civil > time so long as everyone agrees to it. DST shows that sociology can trump > astronomy. (Standard time shows the same thing, but DST's arbitrariness > makes this fact much more starkly clear.) Broad agreement and consensus

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > However, the die was cast on this in 1958 when the second was defined in > terms of atomic behavior. At that point, the game was up, since the > basic unit of time was decoupled from the day. The decoupling occurred before then, when the second was d

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Rob, you keep making these claims that a lot of 'needs' and 'requirements' are being overlooked. Why is it that you never offer a single concrete example ? 1) Read the archives. The astronomers and astronomical software engineers here have done the best job of an

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message: <0b4062cc-0e7e-407f-a856-37f9c74dc...@noao.edu> Rob Seaman writes: : I wrote: : : >> The ITU has a responsibility to consider options with a long term : >> future. : : Poul-Henning Kamp writes: : : > ITU has no such responsibility: : > : > 1 The purposes of the Uni

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message: <32626.1230451...@critter.freebsd.dk> "Poul-Henning Kamp" writes: : In message , Tony F : inch writes: : : >> DST is a trivial gimmick layered on standard time. Standard time is a : >> global system layered on the mean solar day. : > : >I don't think DST is trivial, nor

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message , Rob Seaman writes: >A global village implies global citizens. People have complex needs >that place more stringent timekeeping requirements of all sorts now >than 50 years ago. Rob, you keep making these claims that a lot of 'needs' and 'requirements' are being overlooked. Why

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

I wrote: An organization with a limited scope (telecommunications) should not control a standard with a much broader scope (timekeeping). Poul-Henning Kamp writes: 50 years ago, I might have agreed with you (NB: cheap claim, I'm not that old). But in the networked global village of this

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message <0b4062cc-0e7e-407f-a856-37f9c74dc...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes: >I wrote: > >>> The ITU has a responsibility to consider options with a long term >>> future. > >Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > >> ITU has no such responsibility: >1) An organization with a limited scope (telecommunicati

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

I wrote: The ITU has a responsibility to consider options with a long term future. Poul-Henning Kamp writes: ITU has no such responsibility: 1 The purposes of the Union are: a) to maintain and extend international cooperation among all its Member St

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

Correct. However, the die was cast on this in 1958 when the second was defined in terms of atomic behavior. It was 1967. At that point, the game was up, since the basic unit of time was decoupled from the day. We transitioned from having rubber seconds, to having rubber days. I suppose we

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message <20081227.192200.-1749704408@bsdimp.com>, "M. Warner Losh" write s: >: The ITU has a responsibility to consider options with a long term >: future. ITU has no such responsibility: 1 The purposes of the Union are: a) to maintain and extend international c

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message , Tony F inch writes: >> DST is a trivial gimmick layered on standard time. Standard time is a >> global system layered on the mean solar day. > >I don't think DST is trivial, nor is it a gimmick. Seconded. In addition to what it was designed to, DST changes have taken on an unantici

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

On Sat 2008-12-27T19:22:00 -0700, M. Warner Losh hath writ: > Correct. However, the die was cast on this in 1958 when the second > was defined in terms of atomic behavior. At that point, the game was > up, since the basic unit of time was decoupled from the day. We > transitioned from having rub

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

In message: <5de48b7a-0d30-4580-b110-7687a75a2...@noao.edu> Rob Seaman writes: : Identifying the length of the civil day with the length of the mean : solar day is the key to providing that coherence. (True now on Mars : as well as Earth.) The mean solar day is just the sidereal

Re: [LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, Rob Seaman wrote: > > Rather, a clock can be deposited at any meridian on any planet, set to any > time, running at any rate. The question is whether a particular choice of > parameters is useful and sustainable. Really what it boils down to is a question of how frequently an

[LEAPSECS] Cheating means more planning, not less

I wrote: Whatever the preferences of the ITU, they will discover that it is simply unacceptable to allow local dates to vary secularly from civil timekeeping dates. Tony Finch replies: Civil time *is* a form of local time. The question isn't about haggling over terminology. We've had t