In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Bunclark writes:
>On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Steve Allen wrote:
>> program start and stop time to within a minute. Thursday night
>> viewers are well aware that CBS always runs CSI right up to, or
>> sometimes past 22:00 while NBC starts ER as much as two minutes be
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Steve Allen wrote:
> program start and stop time to within a minute. Thursday night
> viewers are well aware that CBS always runs CSI right up to, or
> sometimes past 22:00 while NBC starts ER as much as two minutes before
> 22:00.
But that's not bad timekeeping, it is an exam
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Calabretta writes:
>On Wed 2005/08/03 22:48:35 MST, Scott Moore wrote
>in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>
>>The conversion to solar time is done for the user's benefit, and that
>>only needs to be accurate to the second, which is all leap second time
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Calabretta writes:
>
>On Thu 2005/08/04 08:18:55 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote
>in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>
>>Most if not all modern UNIXes already have the table of leapseconds.
>
>Without wishing to imply that the solution is so simple, your
On Thu 2005/08/04 23:25:03 -0400, "John.Cowan" wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>Posix time is not a count of seconds, it is not aligned with TAI, and it is
not
>similar to TAI. TAI is truly a count of SI seconds. Posix time assigns
I believe he was saying not that it is, rathe
On Thu 2005/08/04 20:02:51 MST, Scott Moore wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>1. TAI, which I am defining here as "a fixed count of seconds or fraction of
>a second, which does not have gaps or additions (leap anything).
>
>2. "fixed formula" solar time, such as UT1, which is an e
On Thu 2005/08/04 19:44:04 MST, Scott Moore wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>for the next 100 years or so without appreciable variation. It would even
>allow the computer to calculate what the leap seconds are, if they would
>(apparently) stop messing with the system and leave it
On Thu 2005/08/04 20:45:59 -0400, "Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>the solar definition of "second" is actually more in line with how
>the average person regards the unit than the SI definition.
The world record for the women's 1m is 29:31.78 - the time re
Scott Moore scripsit:
> Sounds like we are all agreeing that Unix keeps a fixed seconds count
> similar to, if not syned with, TAI, in the idea that it is a fixed
> count, from an epoch, without any variance for leap seconds, hours,
> whatever, that is only useful to humans after its convertion to
Steve Allen wrote:
On Thu 2005-08-04T19:30:49 -0700, Scott Moore hath writ:
The point was for retorical argument only. Using TAI, or TAI synced
reference as an internal timebase, any computer can calculate the solar
time to far greater accuracies than one second.
The underlying problem he
John.Cowan wrote:
Mark Calabretta scripsit:
On Thu 2005/08/04 08:18:55 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
Most if not all modern UNIXes already have the table of leapseconds.
Without wishing to imply that the solution is so simple, your answer
be
On Thu 2005-08-04T19:30:49 -0700, Scott Moore hath writ:
> The point was for retorical argument only. Using TAI, or TAI synced
> reference as an internal timebase, any computer can calculate the solar
> time to far greater accuracies than one second.
The underlying problem here is that it is not p
Mark Calabretta wrote:
On Thu 2005/08/04 08:18:55 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
Most if not all modern UNIXes already have the table of leapseconds.
Without wishing to imply that the solution is so simple, your answer
begs the question: what d
On Fri 2005-08-05T10:16:51 +1000, Mark Calabretta hath writ:
> The fiction that there are 86400 "seconds" in a solar day is part of
> the problem - noone uses the word "second" in this context. Currently
> there are about 86400.003 seconds in a mean solar day but we use leap
> seconds so that we c
Mark Calabretta wrote:
On Wed 2005/08/03 22:48:35 MST, Scott Moore wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
The conversion to solar time is done for the user's benefit, and that
only needs to be accurate to the second, which is all leap second time
gave you in any case.
Mostly,
Mark Calabretta scripsit:
> On Thu 2005/08/04 08:18:55 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote
> in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>
> >Most if not all modern UNIXes already have the table of leapseconds.
>
> Without wishing to imply that the solution is so simple, your answer
> begs the question:
On 5 Aug 2005 at 10:16, Mark Calabretta wrote:
> The fiction that there are 86400 "seconds" in a solar day is part of
> the problem - noone uses the word "second" in this context. Currently
> there are about 86400.003 seconds in a mean solar day but we use leap
> seconds so that we can carry on p
On Wed 2005/08/03 16:11:06 MST, Rob Seaman wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>3) Clarify the relationship between the civil second and the SI
>second. It may be too late to define a new unit of duration -
>whether Essen or Fressen - or perhaps it isn't. In any event, there
>are 8
On Thu 2005/08/04 08:18:55 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>Most if not all modern UNIXes already have the table of leapseconds.
Without wishing to imply that the solution is so simple, your answer
begs the question: what do you see as the principle diff
On Thu 2005-08-04T15:44:17 +0100, Ed Davies hath writ:
> Perhaps it would be a mistake for the relationship between
> civil and SI seconds to be anything other than identity.
I would agree for planning purposes for the next century.
> On the other hand, the schedule for
> the day would be in civi
On Wed 2005/08/03 22:48:35 MST, Scott Moore wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>The conversion to solar time is done for the user's benefit, and that
>only needs to be accurate to the second, which is all leap second time
>gave you in any case.
Mostly, yes, but it's conceivable tha
Rob Seaman wrote:
...
3) Clarify the relationship between the civil second and the SI
second. It may be too late to define a new unit of duration -
whether Essen or Fressen - or perhaps it isn't. In any event, there
are 86400 seconds per solar day, and that usage of the word "second"
clearly di
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Allen writes:
>On Thu 2005-08-04T09:27:20 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
>> So one feasible option is to predetermine all leapseconds (or
>> leap minutes ?) for the next 50 years in advance.
>>
>> That means an UT1-UTC difference that could go as high as 2
On Thu 2005-08-04T09:27:20 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> So one feasible option is to predetermine all leapseconds (or
> leap minutes ?) for the next 50 years in advance.
>
> That means an UT1-UTC difference that could go as high as 20-30
> seconds but it is still locked and bounded (by our
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>> The whole point of the 24:60:60 notation is to match up with the
>> day. In order to do that all civil time scales have always had
>> leaps or seconds of non-uniform length or both. Dynamical time and
>> atomic time have no such concept and s
25 matches
Mail list logo
