> I should perhaps explain that I was interested in an internal
> representation for durations, which I am now representing as a triple of
> months, minutes, and seconds (the number of minutes in a month is not
> predictable, nor the number of seconds in a minute given leap seconds,
> but all other
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> Interesting question. Perhaps it is the distinction between
> addressability and physical pixels that one encounters on image
> displays and hardcopy devices? (Still have to posit which is which
> in that case :-)
Thanks to those who responded either publicly or privately
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Warner Losh objects:
:
: >> There are several doughty people here who happen to have that
: >> opinion, but they abide with us mortals outside the time lords'
: >> hushed inner sanctum.
: >
: > I have spent much ti
Warner Losh objects:There are several doughty people here who happen to have that opinion, but they abide with us mortals outside the time lords' hushed inner sanctum.I have spent much time explaining why leap seconds cause real problems in real applications, only to be insulted like this.Sincere a
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: M. Warner Losh scripsit:
:
: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : Actually, this list is not a "discussion" per se. If we simplify the
: > : positions - ju
M. Warner Losh scripsit:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Actually, this list is not a "discussion" per se. If we simplify the
> : positions - just for the sake of argument here - to "leap second yes"
> : and "leap second no", the reality
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Actually, this list is not a "discussion" per se. If we simplify the
: positions - just for the sake of argument here - to "leap second yes"
: and "leap second no", the reality is that the folks pushing the "leap
Zefram wrote:
I've been reading the list archives.
What a novel idea!
Parts of the discussion are rather repetetive.
A droll understatement.
Actually, this list is not a "discussion" per se. If we simplify the
positions - just for the sake of argument here - to "leap second yes"
and "lea
On Thu 2006-06-01T06:25:39 -0700, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
> > UT1 et al are not really measures of time, but of angle (of Terran
> > rotation).
>
> To some degree yes, but don't they also include minor
> corrections (polar motion, longitude, etc.) and so at one
> level they already depart from raw
On Thu 2006-06-01T08:09:22 -0400, John Cowan hath writ:
> Some do, some don't, some couldn't care less.
It deserves to be noted that last year at the GA in India URSI
Commission J decided that it couldn't care, and discontinued its
working group on the leap second.
http://www.ursi.org/J_BusRepGA0
> UT1 et al are not really measures of time, but of angle (of Terran
> rotation).
To some degree yes, but don't they also include minor
corrections (polar motion, longitude, etc.) and so at one
level they already depart from raw angle measurement
and instead are trying to act like clocks?
/tvb
Zefram scripsit:
> Readings of UT1 et al are most naturally represented as a real count of
> rotations since some epoch (i.e., as some form of Julian Date).
Such a claim cannot be evaluated without reference to a purpose.
> Because TT, TAI, et al are measures of time unrelated to planetary
> rot
I've been reading the list archives. Parts of the discussion are rather
repetetive. I think the search space could be narrowed quite a bit if the
list produced a canonical statement of consensus, listing facts on which
there is no dispute. This would serve much the same purpose as a FAQ,
as well
13 matches
Mail list logo
