Neal McBurnett said:
>> UT1:Flamsteads birthday ?
> Cute. 1646-08-19
O.S. or N.S.?
At least it wasn't January, which would have added a third option.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Tel:+44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <[EMAIL PROTECT
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Markus Kuhn writes:
>All I wanted to say is that for a good choice of epoch, it would be nice
>if we agreed on it not only to within a few seconds (the leap-second
>problem), but also to within a few milli- or microseconds (the SI/TAI
>second problem). The latter se
On Thu 2006-01-19T19:00:27 +, Markus Kuhn hath writ:
> Please remember that the TAI second differed noticeably from the SI
> second until about 1998, because black-body radiation shift was not
> taken into account in the definition of TAI before then. Also caesium
> fountains have improved quit
"M. Warner Losh" wrote on 2006-01-19 19:35 UTC:
> : Therefore, if people ask me for my favourite epoch for a new time scale,
> : then it is
> :
> : 2000-03-01 00:00:00 (preferably UTC, but I would not mind much
> :if it were TAI, or even "GPS time")
> :
> : This epoch has
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on 2006-01-19 17:56 UTC:
: > >For TAI I'd suggest 1958-01-01, when TAI and UT were set nearly together.
: >
: > I chose the time when TAI became constant rate so that
: > all the rubber sec
On Thu 2006-01-19T09:54:51 -0700, Neal McBurnett hath writ:
> For TAI I'd suggest 1958-01-01, when TAI and UT were set nearly together.
> (I've seen more specific references that TAI was set according to both
> UT2 and UT1 - but they weren't the same then. Perhaps within known
> error at the time
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on 2006-01-19 17:56 UTC:
> >For TAI I'd suggest 1958-01-01, when TAI and UT were set nearly together.
>
> I chose the time when TAI became constant rate so that
> all the rubber seconds are confined to negative values.
Please remember that the TAI second differed noticeably
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "M. Warner Losh" writes:
>I like this idea as well...
>
>Poul, maybe we should implement this on FreeBSD.
>
>I'd suggest "working_time_t" or "correct_time_t" as the name of the
>type to replace "time_t" which would be deprecated. :-)
plenty_time_t :-)
--
Poul-Henni
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neal McBurnett writes:
>On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:59:42PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> Assign different timescales very different
>> numeric epochs:
>> TAI:1972-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
>
>For TAI I'd suggest 1958-01-01, when TAI
I like this idea as well...
Poul, maybe we should implement this on FreeBSD.
I'd suggest "working_time_t" or "correct_time_t" as the name of the
type to replace "time_t" which would be deprecated. :-)
Warner
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:59:42PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> I would far rather we tried to define a time API for
> POSIX to adopt that makes sense.
>
> By make sense I mean:
>
> o conforms to relevant international standards
> ie: recognizes the defininition of leap secon
11 matches
Mail list logo
