On 2014-01-19 08:26 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:14:33 -0800, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-19 08:26 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our universe.
The universe is a little larger than that
On 18 Jan 2014, at 07:18, Clive D.W. Feather cl...@davros.org wrote:
Removing future leap seconds won't change the legal definition of the word
day anywhere. What it does mean is that, in countries using UTC as part
of the legal definition, the centre of the night will drift away from 00:00
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our
On 18/01/14 10:41, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
days, weeks, months, years [...]
As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t
In message 52da8247.70...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
but about what Universal in UTC actually means.
What it *meant*.
That may not be the same thing people mean these days, when they
plunk down robots on different pieces of orbital debris.
Remember: Standards should be
On 2014-01-18 06:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should not attempt to be using concepts like seconds, minutes, hours,
days, weeks, months, years
In message 52da845e.4000...@hfx.eastlink.ca, Eric R. Smith writes:
As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t does not do that.
Doesn't it? If POSIX time_t were in fact a count of SI seconds since the
epoch then the nature of the leap second problem would be quite
different. time_t uses at
On 2014-01-18 10:21, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da845e.4000...@hfx.eastlink.ca, Eric R. Smith writes:
As you are no doubt aware, the POSIX time_t does not do that.
Doesn't it? If POSIX time_t were in fact a count of SI seconds since the
epoch then the nature of the leap second
In message 52da9966.6010...@hfx.eastlink.ca, Eric R. Smith writes:
In the rationale there is a discussion of leap seconds, including the
charming statement:
...most systems are probably not synchronized to any standard time
reference. Therefore, it is inappropriate to require that a time
On Sat 2014-01-18T07:18:01 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
Will the delegates from other nations
simply reject a proposal which is rooted in and strongly pushed by the
military needs of the USA?
What's the basis of this assertion?
The admonition from USNO to its folks attending the
On Jan 18, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 10:41, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-18 12:43 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 08:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should not attempt to be using concepts like
In message 20140118161657.ga1...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen writes:
The ITU-R's only options are:
UTC with leap seconds (status quo)
and
a new time scale which is continuous in value to the current
UTC at the instant of change from old to new (no leap at
the transition)
Says you
On 2014-01-18 02:09 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
There are ways to alter the definition of UTC and keeping within the
concept.
If you want a different concept, then it's a different time-scale. The
concept they are looking for already have an existing time-scale, but
naturally they are free
On 2014-01-18 08:53 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 18, 2014, at 6:31 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 18/01/14 11:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52da2a0f.9060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
If you where right about not basing it on the orbital debris, then we
should
On Sat 2014-01-18T22:03:03 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
Broken-down POSIX time is a YY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss representation - a
*calendar* date-time.
POSIX behaves as an *uncompensated-for-Leap-Seconds* Gregorian
calendar counting scheme.
A calendar, made up of days, which because of the leap
In message 20140117075158.ga2...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen writes:
In practice the birth team has far more important things to do than
watch the clock.
When my son was born at Mt. Diablo Hospital in California, I asked
the staff how they dealt with midnight, DST changes and all that.
They told
On 14/01/14 16:37, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
In 1980 November the CCITT accepted UTC as the time scale for all
other telecommunications activities. In 2007 the BIPM contributed
document 7A/51-E to the ITU-R WP7A meeting regarding Question ITU-R
236/7
On 14/01/14 17:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 0ccafa25-523e-4022-a993-4bc2d9fe5...@noao.edu, Rob Seaman writes:
A timescale that omits that connection should not be denoted
Universal Time of any kind, coordinated or not.
I would argue that any timescale called universal something
Steve Allen said:
What *has* been proposed, where I have seen it, is to remove
leap-seconds, and leave the keep civil time in sync with the sun
up to local governments who can mess with their timezones as they
see fit.
Right. And of the proposals on the table, this is the one that seems to
On 2014-01-17 11:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Let's face it, this lump of orbital debris we call our home planet is
what we have as a reference and try to have common set of references.
This is our universe.
The universe is a little larger than that for the astronomers. Earth
time
On 14 Jan 2014, at 23:53, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
It's not like Ken Dennis looked at leap-seconds and went Naah,
who cares, or even braindead! We'll skip that.
I think it would require slightly more software archaeology to determine who
took what decisions about what.
This notion leaves open the question of the name UTC. In particular,
can the delegates to the ITU-R RA be persuaded to vote for a new
version of TF.460 if they are aware that the new wording will change
the legal definition of the word day in every country which has
adopted UTC as its time
On 16 Jan 2014, at 09:33, Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
This notion leaves open the question of the name UTC. In particular,
can the delegates to the ITU-R RA be persuaded to vote for a new
version of TF.460 if they are aware that the new wording will change
the legal definition
In message 2747cb51-6467-4a14-92be-229901755...@batten.eu.org, Ian Batten wri
tes:
That ship's already sailed. Days are the intervals between successive
civil time midnights,
...except in Norway and Denmark, and a few other select countries where
our language as a word for 24 hour period (døgn)
The Multics clock design (a fixed bin (71), ie double word, representing
microseconds
since 00:00 01-01-1900) clearly informs the Unix one.
Was it 1900 or 1901? See:
http://www.multicians.org/jhs-clock.html
http://web.mit.edu/multics-history/source/Multics/ldd/bos/include/rdclock.incl.alm
Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
When I developed email in 1976 I encoded the BCD date (mmddyy) and BCD
time (hhmmss) into two 18-bit binary fields. This worked because the
maximum possible date was 123199, the maximum time was 235959, which
just fit in the maximum half-word (2^18 =
In message ead2cfb1-799e-4bc9-9a68-80aad893e...@batten.eu.org, Ian Batten wri
tes:
It would be interesting to know what proportion of computers
1975--2000 had their clocks aligned to within +/- 22 seconds of
anything, such that ignoring leap second was anything other than
a second-order effect.
On Jan 16, 2014, at 7:23 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message ead2cfb1-799e-4bc9-9a68-80aad893e...@batten.eu.org, Ian Batten
wri
tes:
It would be interesting to know what proportion of computers
1975--2000 had their clocks aligned to within +/- 22 seconds of
anything, such that
On 16 Jan 2014, at 15:03, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
I think the answer for 1970-1990 is that most of them were aligned to local
time (even if the system ticked in virtual UTC/GMT time) with sub-minute
accuracy. Time alignment started to matter as more computers were networked
On Thu 2014-01-16T01:33:53 -0800, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
What is a typical example of the legal definition of a day? Would
that definition be affected if DUT1 were allowed to grow to 2 s or 10
s or 60 s instead of 0.9 s?
In the United States one legal definition with significant financial
On Thu 2014-01-16T06:55:00 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
What *has* been proposed, where I have seen it, is to remove
leap-seconds, and leave the keep civil time in sync with the sun
up to local governments who can mess with their timezones as they
see fit.
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
They chose UTC because they meant UTC.
...
The reason why they didn't cater to leap-seconds ?
They hadn't heard about them at the time.
It's dubious to say that they meant UTC if they weren't aware of
leap seconds. As that's the defining feature of UTC (well, nearly,
In message 20140114103334.gv21...@fysh.org, Zefram writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
They chose UTC because they meant UTC.
...
The reason why they didn't cater to leap-seconds ?
They hadn't heard about them at the time.
It's dubious to say that they meant UTC if they weren't aware of
leap
On Tue 2014-01-14T10:48:33 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
To everybody else but the scientists who tickled the atomic clocks,
leap seconds was an academic detail of no consequence.
Right. Most of the world had quartz crystal clocks off by seconds per
month. The ephemerides simply
On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
In message 20140114103334.gv21...@fysh.org, Zefram writes:
It's dubious to say that they meant UTC if they weren't aware of
leap seconds. As that's the defining feature of UTC [...]
No.
The defining feature of
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
In 1980 November the CCITT accepted UTC as the time scale for all
other telecommunications activities. In 2007 the BIPM contributed
document 7A/51-E to the ITU-R WP7A meeting regarding Question ITU-R
236/7 saying please don't use TAI, we might
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
In message 20140114103334.gv21...@fysh.org, Zefram writes:
It's dubious to say that they meant UTC if they weren't aware of
leap seconds. As that's the defining
On 01/14/2014 05:48 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The defining feature of UTC is the bit they put in the name: Coordinated.
To everybody else but the scientists who tickled the atomic clocks,
leap seconds was an academic detail of no consequence.
Maybe you think the defining feature of UTC
In message 52d5c90c.6050...@cox.net, Greg Hennessy writes:
To everybody else but the scientists who tickled the atomic clocks,
leap seconds was an academic detail of no consequence.
Maybe you think the defining feature of UTC is the Coordinated
part, others think the defining feature is the
On Jan 14, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
It's not like Ken Dennis looked at leap-seconds and went Naah,
who cares, or even braindead! We'll skip that.”
Presumably you mean the other Ken Dennis:
On Jan 14, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
But the changing-reality-thingie ?
Nope, havn't seen that.
There's no thought to change reality. The thought is to label seconds
differently.
Warner
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
In message 52d38720.4000...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
What CCITT recommendation are you refering to?
It was CCIR that did the broadcasting recommendations that we keep
refering to.
And that's what I'm talking about.
The reason UTC got put on radio was that it was
Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote:
You are saying that UTC as a term for the adjusted timescale existed as
the process of time-keeping in computers began and they intended
computers to reflect civil time even if the details of exactly how to
do that hadn't been worked out. Modern UTC, UTC
On Jan 12, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
I don't think the fact that they called it GMT at that point tells you
anything since referring to UTC as GMT was pretty common in the US at
the time. Even the NBS did it. WWV voice announcements referred to the time
being transmitted as
Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
So seeing GMT in early Unix documents doesn't necessarily mean what
you think it means, especially given the first hand accounts of
participants on this list who specifically asked the people that
originally wrote it what the intention behind the words was.
On Jan 13, 2014, at 2:30 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message be5b1909-2417-4f36-b5cc-aa2b35e45...@bsdimp.com, Warner Losh
write
s:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a280955.pdf Perhaps these
documents will prove useful in working out TAI's origin, but it seems
that LORAN-C
On Jan 13, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
So seeing GMT in early Unix documents doesn't necessarily mean what
you think it means, especially given the first hand accounts of
participants on this list who specifically asked the people that
originally
In message 5036fb31-5cb7-46a6-949e-5534441fe...@bsdimp.com, Warner Losh write
s:
The development was concurrent, not sequential. Unix 1st and 2nd edition
had a 1971 epoch and 1/60th second resolution. 3rd edition moved the epoch
to 1972.
According to Dennis Ritchie what happened was that they
In message 8d282b74-4172-4888-8581-9f197314a...@bsdimp.com, Warner Losh write
s:
The other PTTI docs I posted show that the Navy (USNO) was ordered to =
provide technical assistance to the USCG in synchronizing the master =
clocks at the LORAN stations in 1960.
The LORSTA veterans website
On 2014-01-12 03:28, Brooks Harris quoted from RFC 5905:
Then, and very importantly, Figure 4: Interesting Historic NTP Dates
states the relationship to First day UNIX -
+-++-+---+--+
| Date| MJD| NTP | NTP Timestamp
On 2014-01-13 09:29 AM, Michael Deckers wrote:
On 2014-01-12 03:28, Brooks Harris quoted from RFC 5905:
Then, and very importantly, Figure 4: Interesting Historic NTP Dates
states the relationship to First day UNIX -
+-++-+---+--+
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote on Mon, 13 Jan 2014
at 16:03:28 + in 86897.1389629...@critter.freebsd.dk:
I don't think he told me exactly what representation they used
before time_t became 32bit*seconds, but prior to that, the wrap-around
of timestamps was prevented only by
On Jan 13, 2014, at 1:54 PM, John Hawkinson jh...@mit.edu wrote:
In other news, the count of the number of times in this thread folks
have said Universal Time Coordinated instead of Coordinated
Universal Time is higher than I would expect. (Coordinated Universal
Time is the proper expansion
Thanks very much Steve. Great info
On 2014-01-11 10:45 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Sat 2014-01-11T21:43:02 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
Any help getting to the bottom of this appreciated.
It's history, and it's confused. Measurement techniques were crude
and people were not cognizant
On 2014-01-11 11:47 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d20beb.60...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
Yes, in my opinion its unfortunate they chose to use the term UTC in
that context.
They chose UTC because they meant UTC.
I have this directly from multiple persons who were involved
On 2014-01-12 12:30 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d251b5.4060...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
4. The origin of International Atomic Time is
defined in conformance with the recommendations
of the International Astronomical Union (13th
General Assembly, Prague, 1967) that is,
In message 52d257b6.6090...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
But time_t has always been UTC, because it was meant to be UTC.
Oh, I see what you're saying. Of course - UTC in the historical non-Leap
Second period existed, and they intended time_t to reflect it.
Nice try to twist things to
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:58:40 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d257b6.6090...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
But time_t has always been UTC, because it was meant to be UTC.
Oh, I see what you're saying. Of course - UTC in the historical non-Leap
Second period existed, and
On Sun 2014-01-12T00:26:29 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
I had seen refernce to the fact the 1958 origin was retroactively
declared, and this might throw light on why there is a gap in the
TIA/UTC tables between 1958 and 1961. So I was hunting for the
actual statement in the standards.
In message 52d2e6f5.2030...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
I think I understand you. You are saying that UTC as a term for the
I'm saying that UTC is Universal Time Coordinated, such as defined
and used by telcos for a decade by the time UNIX was written.
What was inside UTC didn't mater to
On 2014-01-12 11:33 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d2e6f5.2030...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
I think I understand you. You are saying that UTC as a term for the
I'm saying that UTC is Universal Time Coordinated, such as defined
and used by telcos for a decade by the time
On 01/12/2014 02:47 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d20beb.60...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
Yes, in my opinion its unfortunate they chose to use the term UTC in
that context.
They chose UTC because they meant UTC.
I have this directly from multiple persons who were
In message 52d2fe51.40...@cox.net, Greg Hennessy writes:
On 01/12/2014 02:47 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d20beb.60...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
Yes, in my opinion its unfortunate they chose to use the term UTC in
that context.
They chose UTC because they meant UTC.
I
On Jan 12, 2014, at 2:01 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
I'm not sure if there is a connection either. When did LORAN-C adopt 1958?
I can't answer definitively on when, but can point the way to what I know.
LORAN-C is defined by COMDTINST M16562.4A. Quoting from chapter 2:
This epoch is from 0 hr, 0
On Jan 12, 2014, at 4:01 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d259db.4000...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
I'm not sure if there is a connection, and if there is, which way
it might go, but that is also the (theoretical) time of coincidence
of all LORAN-C chains.
I'm not sure
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:42:57 -0500, Greg Hennessy wrote:
On 01/12/2014 02:47 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d20beb.60...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
Yes, in my opinion its unfortunate they chose to use the term UTC in
that context.
They chose UTC because they meant UTC.
Joseph Gwinn joegw...@comcast.net wrote:
In the UNIX before POSIX, it was GMT.
Your use of the past tense is incorrect. In non-POSIX UNIX, it (the
system time definition) *is* GMT, present tense. See my previous
post.
VLR,
SF
___
LEAPSECS mailing
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:18:41 GMT, Michael Spacefalcon wrote:
Joseph Gwinn joegw...@comcast.net wrote:
In the UNIX before POSIX, it was GMT.
Your use of the past tense is incorrect. In non-POSIX UNIX, it (the
system time definition) *is* GMT, present tense. See my previous
post.
Well,
On 01/12/2014 05:12 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
GMT and UTC were used interchangeably well into the 1990s, especially in
publication not subject to peer review of subject experts...
People still use them interchangeably TODAY, however the people doing so
are incorrect.
We can't agree on how to
On 01/12/2014 05:14 PM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
It sounds like you are rewriting history.
No, he isn't. In the UNIX before POSIX, it was GMT. When the first
POSIX standard was developed, GMT had been deprecated in favor of UTC,
so POSIX changed to UTC.
POSIX changed to calling something
On 01/12/2014 06:12 PM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Getting true GMT (~UT1) is a bit more work that
would seem necessary for 99.999% of users.
Well, 99.999 percent of users don't want or need
a PL/1 compiler, but I don't think that is a good
reason for saying that they can't have one.
Likewise,
On Sun 2014-01-12T11:46:16 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
So it appears the reference to the International Astronomical Union (13th
General Assembly, Prague, 1967) is where the recommendations from
BIH come to the statement in
l.A.2. Recommendations of the 5th Session
of the Consultative
Joseph Gwinn joegw...@comcast.net wrote:
Well, yes, but I guess it's a bit of hair splitting. The UNIX docs may
well still say GMT, but I bet what they really use is UTC, as that's
what's distributed.
Using UTC as a *realisation* of GMT is acceptable only for as long as
UTC remains a *good
In message 52d2f909.9080...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
I'm saying that UTC is Universal Time Coordinated, such as defined
and used by telcos for a decade by the time UNIX was written.
What was inside UTC didn't mater to them, UTC was the accepted
international timescale and they used
On 12 Jan, 2014, at 15:42 , Greg Hennessy greg.henne...@cox.net wrote:
On 01/12/2014 02:47 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 52d20beb.60...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
Yes, in my opinion its unfortunate they chose to use the term UTC in
that context.
They chose UTC because
On 12/01/14 09:26, Brooks Harris wrote:
Thanks very much Steve. Great info
On 2014-01-11 10:45 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Sat 2014-01-11T21:43:02 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
Any help getting to the bottom of this appreciated.
It's history, and it's confused. Measurement techniques
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:39:32 -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 11, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:35:25 -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
On Jan 10, 2014, at 8:35 PM, Skip Newhall wrote:
'Proscribe’ and 'prescribe' are distinct words:
'Proscribe' means to
In message 52d20beb.60...@edlmax.com, Brooks Harris writes:
Yes, in my opinion its unfortunate they chose to use the term UTC in
that context.
They chose UTC because they meant UTC.
I have this directly from multiple persons who were involved back
then, including Dennis Ritchie who gave me the
In message 20140112064503.gb23...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen writes:
How they handle the leap second issue will assert whether humanity has
any intent of keeping the meaning of the word day to be based on the
rotation of the earth.
No, it will decide who gets to decide when day is: The local and
On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 06/01/14 19:40, Rob Seaman wrote:
PDFs of the slides from the talks yesterday (5 Jan 2014) are now available
at:
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/aas223/
Thanks for the pointer.
Reviewing Kara Warburton's
In message 82c28c2d-c797-4c56-a2e9-b65f38faf...@bsdimp.com, Warner Losh write
s:
The side channel issue is why I've advocated, with others, a much
longer time horizon for leap seconds. This would allow the useful
life of most products to have no need for a communications side
channel to get this
Warner Losh writes:
...
A TAI realization of time_t isn't POSIX, which specifically proscribes
UTC.
I think you mean prescribes.
H
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
On 10/01/14 20:08, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Warner Losh writes:
...
A TAI realization of time_t isn't POSIX, which specifically proscribes
UTC.
I think you mean prescribes.
Regardless, today the POSIX standard has a mapping (or used to, last
time I checked I was unable to find that mapping,
of the sentence the Magnus refers to.
-Original Message-
From: leapsecs-boun...@leapsecond.com [mailto:leapsecs-boun...@leapsecond.com]
On Behalf Of Magnus Danielson
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 6:24 PM
To: leapsecs@leapsecond.com
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] presentations from AAS Future
] On Behalf Of Magnus Danielson
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 6:24 PM
To: leapsecs@leapsecond.com
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] presentations from AAS Future of Time sessions
On 10/01/14 20:08, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Warner Losh writes:
...
A TAI realization of time_t isn't POSIX, which specifically
On 06/01/14 19:40, Rob Seaman wrote:
PDFs of the slides from the talks yesterday (5 Jan 2014) are now available at:
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/aas223/
Thanks for the pointer.
Reviewing Kara Warburton's presentation I have one comment.
The concept of a international
PDFs of the slides from the talks yesterday (5 Jan 2014) are now available at:
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/aas223/
Rob
--
PS - In addition to many other links, see C. A. McDaniel Wyman's Master's
Thesis, The Leap Second Debate midway down:
I just landed, and my sleep clock is seriously disrupted.
Rob, the presentation you have from me is likely the one that was
converted to powerpoint, and it didn't convert as well as I expected.
I'll send a PDF version as soon as I can.
--
Harlan Stenn st...@ntp.org
92 matches
Mail list logo
