On 01/13/2011 22:19, Tom Van Baak wrote:
It would appear that making adjustments every 10 days is not
often enough, at least in the US, viz:
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp50/NISTUTC.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp50/nistusno.cfm
Even if we abandon the leap second, we have issues at
On 01/14/2011 00:22, Sanjeev Gupta wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 13:47, Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com
mailto:t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
You really didn't expect 250 diffeent atomic clocks around
the world to all agree at the ns level at all times did you?
tounge-in-cheek
Why
On 01/14/2011 03:29, Tony Finch wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Steve Allen wrote:
Alas, 'tis neither normal nor expected by the APIs and the programmers
who are implementing systems that deal with time.
One of the core abstractions provided by operating systems is some
coherent model of time. And
-boun...@leapsecond.com
[mailto:leapsecs-boun...@leapsecond.com] On Behalf Of Sanjeev Gupta
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 2:23 AM
To: Leap Second Discussion List
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Looking-glass, through
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 13:47, Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
You
On 2011-01-14 16:26, Warner Losh wrote:
The BIPM collects time and frequency data for the different clocks,
measured against each other. Each clock then has an error in frequency
and time computed. These clocks are then weighted based on assigned
values (based on the time scientists
Continuously adjusting clocks, even atomic clocks, to keep them within
a certain tight tolerance is, in general, not a good pratice. Clocks
will keep better time if left running. Rather, the offset of the
clock from the standard is measured and used as appropriate.
Performance levels of
On 01/14/2011 09:40, Richard Langley wrote:
Continuously adjusting clocks, even atomic clocks, to keep them within
a certain tight tolerance is, in general, not a good pratice. Clocks
will keep better time if left running. Rather, the offset of the
clock from the standard is measured and used
It would appear that making adjustments every 10 days is not
often enough, at least in the US, viz:
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp50/NISTUTC.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp50/nistusno.cfm
Even if we abandon the leap second, we have issues at the nanosecond level.
This is what
Alas, 'tis neither normal nor expected by the APIs and the programmers
who are implementing systems that deal with time.
Let me find some good references for you on how the UTC
paper clock actually works. Inter-comparing the clocks from
each national laboratory is in itself a fascinating
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 13:47, Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
You really didn't expect 250 diffeent atomic clocks around
the world to all agree at the ns level at all times did you?
tounge-in-cheek
Why not? nano is 10E-9, and I see references to people trying for clocks
with 10E-12
Apologies for a delayed reply, I'm on travel at a conference.
On Sat, 8 Jan 2011, I wrote:
I do not believe the unstated magic timezone notion (if indeed that is an
idea motivating the authors of the draft in front of the ITU) can work (or
rather, I do not believe that this notion
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Rob Seaman wrote:
Sloshing the timezones around willy-nilly by every regional government
on Earth is not a solution to establishing the underlying common
timescale.
Of course not, that's backwards. The common timescale is the basis of
timezones, not the other way round.
On 01/12/2011 10:30, Steve Allen wrote:
On Wed 2011-01-12T16:36:35 +, Tony Finch hath writ:
Yes, but how accurately do you need clocks to track it? How frequently do
you need to make adjustments to correct for the atomic/angular rate error,
and what size of adjustment is acceptable?
It
Rob Seaman said:
For instance, what authority will historians or lawyers consult to learn the
applicable timezone offsets that were in force in some location(s) during
some epoch(s) in question?
FX: falls about laughing
Those of us on the timezone list can't even find out this information
14 matches
Mail list logo
