Tony Finch said:
Halsbury's Laws of England has some interesting (bizarre, self-
contradictory) paragraphs on the meaning of civil time, which I'll
append as a postscript because of their length.
I'm going to comment on these, partly because Halsbury is well out of date.
215. Local time.
On Nov 12, 2008, at 6:30 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
dawn's early light
This better fits twilight. Perhaps crack of dawn?
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Rob Seaman wrote:
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
No, it's because there are no applications where people need to say what
would my GPS receiver had said in 1751?. Whereas people do need to
represent older times in (say) POSIX time.
Do they? Example use case from 1751?
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Living in a country that legally still uses 'mean solar time on the
15the eastern longitude' I find this very hard to belive.
We have not even come close to eradicating usage of GMT as an
alias for UTC.
Thanks for emphasizing this point.
I think it is safe to say,
Clive D.W. Feather scripsit:
I don't think that R. v Haddock on the meaning of general purposes is
settled law in the UK,
Doubtless not. But, if you will, remind us just which piece of jolly
ligitation that was? There were so many of them
--
With techies, I've generally found
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
However, surely the point of coupling TI with the zoneinfo notion -
just for the sake of argument - is to simply start distributing TI
instead of UTC. Then UTC - a flavor of Universal Time, an alias for
Greenwich
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
However, surely the point of coupling TI with the zoneinfo notion -
just for the sake of argument - is to simply start distributing TI
instead of UTC. Then UTC - a
John Cowan said:
Clive D.W. Feather scripsit:
I don't think that R. v Haddock on the meaning of general purposes is
settled law in the UK,
Doubtless not. But, if you will, remind us just which piece of jolly
ligitation that was? There were so many of them
Drinking is not a general
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:And illegal on many systems, including all USGOV owned and operatedsystems.I thought the ITU had treaty status, therefore that they could decree that we all must henceforth wear Goofy watches that run CCW, and that this sober determination would supersede all other laws of
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
No, it's because there are no applications where people need to say
what would my GPS receiver had said in 1751?. Whereas people do
need to represent older times in (say) POSIX time.
Do they? Example use case from 1751?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Rob Seaman wrote:
Are people really convinced by the argument that badly implemented systems
should determine policy?
I'm arguing about deployment pragmatics. Note that the systems aren't
badly implemented, they are just following specs based on UT sans leap
seconds.
If
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Jonathan E. Hardis wrote:
* Who can cite case law, where a court has had to decide an actual
controversy on timekeeping? (Courts don't deal with hypothetical
controversies or arguments over trivia. De minimis non curat lex.)
Curtis v. March, cited earlier in
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
But more importantly, they put their lives, unaware of this fact,
in hands of automatic systems, which work on the mistaken POSIX
interpretation of the UTC timescale.
I should add, that the legal impact of POSIX seems to be vastly
Rob Seaman scripsit:
But you're right - I see the light! I now acknowledge that it is more
important to kowtow to international standards - standards that you
loudly blare are badly conceived and written - than to acknowledge
minor facts of physical reality such as that Earth has a
John Cowan wrote:
What has the Moon to do with it? The connection of the Moon to the
calendar was lost in Julius Caesar's time -- doubtless to great
howling
by the astro{nom,log}ical community.
...and around we go again. This was my shorthand way of referring to
all the issues
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 04:13:25PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
I agree with your requirements 2,3,4 and I note that UTC doesn't satisfy
3, which is another statement of this timeless predictability requirement.
(Your requirement 4 is only relatively timeless, since it allows for
changes in the
16 matches
Mail list logo
