On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Um, what buttons on the back? My kitchen RC clock has none such (probably
because just about all of the UK is in the same time zone).
Mine has buttons to request a radio sync and for manual setting.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony
Finch writes:
It seems that the reason my MSF clock didn't switch to DST was its
position - moving it allowed it to resync correctly.
This is one of my major issues with radio-sync clocks: they seldom
tell you they have no idea what time it really is.
--
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Steve Allen wrote:
Part of the beauty of distinguishing broadcast time signals from UTC,
while continuing both, is that it allows separate issues to be
addressed separately.
I allow that the broadcast time signals should be leap free, for there
are many operational
Tony Finch said:
So you think that the millions of existing radio controlled clocks and
watches should stop showing civil time?
They already do.
Tony (wondering why his MSF clock failed to switch to BST).
Mine changed fine, though it was a bit moot since the entire family was in
Italy until
On Mon 2008-03-31T12:20:06 +0100, Tony Finch hath writ:
So you think that the millions of existing radio controlled clocks and
watches should stop showing civil time?
Yes, that is, yes to a subsecond precision.
They would be showing TI instead of UT, another international
standard, and a
Rob Seaman said:
Ease of setting is a great feature. But setting a clock
also involves checking that you set it correctly (selected the right
combination of buttons on the back).
Um, what buttons on the back? My kitchen RC clock has none such (probably
because just about all of the UK is
although naive math is, well, naive, more code exists that assumes,
for example, that midnight it time_t % 86400 == 0 than you want to
believe. Changing this is really bad karma.
The current situation is that code like your example does not accurately
reflect reality. I advocate changing the
On Fri 2008-03-28T15:28:53 +, Tony Finch hath writ:
The POSIX standard guarantees that what Warner wrote is correct.
The POSIX standard is in denial about leap seconds with respect to
UTC. I don't know about international standards, but in people I'm
sure that's not a good sign, and I try
On Fri 2008-03-28T16:04:49 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
My personal preference would be to bite the bullet and live with
the 128bit memory hit:
utc_t 64i.64f (big enough, small enough)
Whereas I am not against the notion of such, I find that nomenclature
to be
Steve Allen scripsit:
The POSIX standard is in denial about leap seconds with respect to
UTC. I don't know about international standards, but in people I'm
sure that's not a good sign, and I try to avoid such.
Not exactly. What it denies is that there is necessarily 1s between
values of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
On Fri 2008-03-28T16:04:49 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
My personal preference would be to bite the bullet and live with
the 128bit memory hit:
utc_t 64i.64f (big enough, small enough)
Whereas I am not against
although naive math is, well, naive, more code exists that assumes,
for example, that midnight it time_t % 86400 == 0 than you want to
believe. Changing this is really bad karma.
The current situation is that code like your example does not accurately
reflect reality.
The POSIX
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg Hennessy writes:
My claim is that if POSIX defines time_t % 86400 == 0 as being
midnight than POSIX doesn't reflect reality, [...]
Well, POSIX clearly doesn't match the scientific definition of
UTC, but as which of the two is more real is mostly a matter of
Greg Hennessy scripsit:
My claim is that if POSIX defines time_t % 86400 == 0 as being
midnight than POSIX doesn't reflect reality, since people think
midnight as being UTC rather than POSIX.
When it's midnight UTC, a properly time-aware Posix system *will*
report that time_t % 86400 == 0.
Working backwards through the messages.
On Mar 28, 2008, at 1:22 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
How is that any different than the ITU defining UTC to generally
behave as time has behaved for centuries, except that leap seconds
have a new notation (the :60 stuff)?
ITU didn't create UTC since they
On Mar 28, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Well, POSIX clearly doesn't match the scientific definition of
UTC, but as which of the two is more real is mostly a matter of
philosophy I think.
Both are human constructs. It is mean solar time that is real, that
is, the sidereal day
On Mar 28, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
It seems unlikely to me that any organization has the standing to
assert an unambiguous time scale that is both operational and
comprehensive across history.
Indeed. This is a function of Mother Earth. Smash a clock offering a
On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
But our problems with POSIX may pale soon, when the politically
ram-rodded, 7000 pages long OOXML standard for office and business
documents gets ratified by ISO as a rubberstamp standard.
As far as I know that standard gets none of leap
On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Even if we decided to fix time_t's little red wagon for
good, and got the economic resources to do so, we would be very
hard pressed to find the competent man-power to carry it out reliably.
I'm fascinated by your choice of this line of
On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
But if we call POSIX time_t by a new name (say TI) which has
international status and properties which match the specified
characteristics of time_t then what we have is enlightenment.
How about calling it GPS?
The assertion is that TAI itself
On Mar 28, 2008, at 4:42 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
This is exactly the flagday that will make the upgrades to a few
hundered telescopes look like peanuts.
In grad school one of my housemates was a Swedish postdoc with an
inordinate fondness for Jack Lord and Hawaii Five-O
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
However complex the current worldwide system of systems comprising our
civilization, it will only get more complex.
There are actually a significant undercurrent that indicates that this
will not be the case.
Most recent technology, while rich
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
But if we call POSIX time_t by a new name (say TI) which has
international status and properties which match the specified
characteristics of time_t then what we have is enlightenment.
How about
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
Per had an entertaining description of the flagday when Sweden
switched to right-side driving in 1967.
You know the danish version of that story ?
They were afraid that it would be total mayhem to do it in one go,
so the phased it in: First
On Mar 28, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The thing that seems to be widely overlooked by technologists,
possibly by the high-IQ crowd in general, is that Moores law does
not apply to wetware, and consequently, there very much is a fixed
upper limit for how much technology you can
On Mar 28, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Only if you can convince ISO9000 consultants that there is a
traceability
from this timescale (as distributed by NTP ?) to UTC which forms the
basis of legal timekeeping.
Ahoy! A requirement has been discovered!
26 matches
Mail list logo
