On 1 October 2014 21:19, Hal Murray hmur...@megapathdsl.net wrote:
The leap offset data doesn't change very often. Why should it be distributed
via NTP rather than with the time-zone database or something similar?
Because NTP already has support for it, and the data received by NTP
is then
On 2 October 2014 00:00, Greg Hennessy greg.henne...@cox.net wrote:
On 10/01/2014 09:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
We also need
- a clear smoothing/smearing standard, mapping from UTC (with leap
seconds) to smoothed-UTC (86400 secs per day, no leap seconds). This
could be UTC-SLS, Google
In message CACzrW9BueiVGHtZD5pTWPcWAEHqtBSR5++=2dzyxowgw7os...@mail.gmail.com
, Stephen Colebourne writes:
On 1 October 2014 21:19, Hal Murray hmur...@megapathdsl.net wrote:
The leap offset data doesn't change very often. Why should it be distributed
via NTP rather than with the
Ian Batten via LEAPSECS leapsecs@leapsecond.com wrote:
I can't think of any (country, religion) pairs where the religion has a
deep embedding of solar time and the country is sufficiently in hock to
the religion that it would alter its civil timescale to suit.
There were some relics in the tz
Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
|On Oct 1, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
| Steffen Nurpmeso sdao...@yandex.com wrote:
| I cannot imagine you wouldn't agree that having CLOCK_TAI (and
| CLOCK_LEAPDRIFT) make things easier.
|
| For most purposes we need civil time, and
Hal Murray hmur...@megapathdsl.net wrote:
| (Nonetheless i repeat that having TAI plus the current LEAPDRIFT at hand
| would ease date and time calculation algorithms, and also that i don't
| understand why the existing information is thrown away instead of being
| delivered along with the UTC
It's a shame that the representative from the Muslim community didn't
manage to
make it to the consultation session I was at. I suspect that in fact the
Muslim
community are less concerned that you might think, because the sighting
of the
moon for the purposes of the end of Ramadan is done
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
This approach would satisfy all parties: humans can continue to enjoy the
cultural achievement of a clock that exactly describes their home planet,
and engineers can use TAI for satisfying airplane schedule calculations for
businessmen.
Businessmen can keep whatever time
|Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
|
| No. The basic point is that people are ignoring the standard because it
| is hard to implement.
|
|Given the perpetual arguments on this list, I am not surprised by the
|reaction of the people participating in the UK consultation: techies
|should
But the basic point still remains: If you have to sugar coat the actual standard
with a fake standard to paper-over people’s inability to deal with the actual
standard, this suggests that you have the wrong actual standard.
I would agree that we have the wrong actual standard. We've had leap
Steffen Nurpmeso sdao...@yandex.com wrote:
This approach would satisfy all parties: humans can continue to
enjoy the cultural achievement of a clock that exactly describes
their home planet, and engineers can use TAI for satisfying
airplane schedule calculations for businessmen.
No. Planning
For most of human history there were no global time standards. In Europe,
many city states had their own distinctive times--Nuremberg Time, Italian
Time, Bohemian Time . . .
The first wave of global standards were implemented by colonialism and
empire.
Implementing global standards without
On 1 October 2014 13:02, Greg Hennessy greg.henne...@cox.net wrote:
But the basic point still remains: If you have to sugar coat the actual
standard
with a fake standard to paper-over people’s inability to deal with the
actual
standard, this suggests that you have the wrong actual standard.
On Oct 1, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Greg Hennessy greg.henne...@cox.net wrote:
But the basic point still remains: If you have to sugar coat the actual
standard
with a fake standard to paper-over people’s inability to deal with the actual
standard, this suggests that you have the wrong actual
Gerard Ashton ashto...@comcast.net wrote:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|
| This approach would satisfy all parties: humans can continue to enjoy the
|cultural achievement of a clock that exactly describes their home planet,
|and engineers can use TAI for satisfying airplane schedule calculations
Gerard Ashton said:
Businessmen can keep whatever time they like for internal use, but
whenever a businessman communicates with a customer or another business, the
courts will interpret any times stated as being the legal time of the
applicable jurisdiction, although in many cases the
Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
|Steffen Nurpmeso sdao...@yandex.com wrote:
| their home planet, and engineers can use TAI for satisfying
| airplane schedule calculations for businessmen.
|
|No. Planning for human events in the future needs to be based on the local
|time in a particular
Kevin Birth kevin.bi...@qc.cuny.edu wrote:
For most of human history there were no global time standards. In Europe,
many city states had their own distinctive times--Nuremberg Time, Italian
Time, Bohemian Time . . .
But before there were standard times there were standard representations
of
Steffen Nurpmeso sdao...@yandex.com wrote:
I cannot imagine you wouldn't agree that having CLOCK_TAI (and
CLOCK_LEAPDRIFT) make things easier.
For most purposes we need civil time, and a TAI clock doesn't solve the
problem that civil time is too difficult to get right.
Tony.
--
The 12/24 clock was only standard in England and France. Nuremberg
hours (separate counts for daytime and nighttime) lasted until 1811,
Italian hours (1-24 beginning at evening twilight) until the 1860s,
Japanese time until 1873. I don't know when Bohemian hours were done away
with. Some parts
On 1 Oct 2014, at 14:33, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
Abolishing leap seconds is another approach, but it works by putting a
head in the sand and ignoring the underlying tension with solar days.
And my big fear is that some more religiously minded countries might
choose
On 10/01/2014 09:33 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
We also need
- a clear smoothing/smearing standard, mapping from UTC (with leap
seconds) to smoothed-UTC (86400 secs per day, no leap seconds). This
could be UTC-SLS, Google smear or something else, so long as there is
a clear well-defined
So you are saying that the UTC standard is so broken that you have to invent
your own, which is not standardized by any standards body[*], to get around
it? UTC is the required time base for business and has some odd quirks which
mean that to comply with it you have to be an expert on the
[mailto:leapsecs-boun...@leapsecond.com] On Behalf Of Hal
Murray
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:23 PM
To: leapsecs@leapsecond.com
Cc: Hal Murray
Subject: [LEAPSECS] Do lawyers care (know) about leap seconds?
.
.
.
How many contracts worry about seconds?
I think it's common for contracts
Hal Murray said:
How many contracts worry about seconds?
Ones to deal with electronic trading, domain name registration, and such
topics.
I think it's common for contracts to start one minute before or after
midnight to avoid an English language ambiguity. Things like midnight
Monday
Television, cable, and internet advertising. In broadcast (including
cable) the contracts are in video frames, in the North America and other
NTSC standards countries this is on the order of +- 1/30th second (with
some small variance for technical error). Lots and lots of commercials,
lots
On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:46 PM, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
But the basic point still remains: If you have to sugar coat the actual
standard
with a fake standard to paper-over people’s inability to deal with the actual
standard, this suggests that you have the wrong actual standard.
No,
On Sep 30, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:46 PM, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
But the basic point still remains: If you have to sugar coat the actual
standard
with a fake standard to paper-over people’s inability to deal with the actual
28 matches
Mail list logo
