On Dec 17, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Regarding an intenational treaty as a contract is not only pointless,
it is downright silly.
Regarding me as an expert on international law is what would be
silly :–)
The point was to elaborate, in the context of UTC, on some issues
Peter Vince wrote at 20:15 + on Dec 18, 2006:
For the moment, if leap seconds is to be abbandoned, I would favour the leap
minute instead.
Is that not sitting on the fence, and ending up with the worst of
both worlds? It is neither as precise as leap (micro, milli, or
whole)
I've had a great time reading the Parrish temporal brief. If I
didn't have a massive deadline looming, I'd now start digging into
some of the more intriguing references from the footnotes. Maybe in
a couple of months. In the mean time (so to speak), I have some
comments on a variety of
On Sun 2006-12-17T18:48:16 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
But you could conceiveably argue the point, that ITU-R only controls
time, as far as it pertains to telecommunication and radio transmission
of time signals, and that each country is free to use another
timescale for civilian time.
The BIPM says
http://www1.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=15RES=5
that UTC gives an indication of mean solar time, which it can only do
using leap seconds.
Steve,
This is rubbish and you know it.
UTC can give an indication of mean solartime with leap hours, leap
minutes,
