Tim Shepard scripsit:
[many sensible opinions snipped]
> "leap hours" are a horrible idea, whether they be leap hours inserted
> in to some UTC-like global standard, or by local jurisdictions.
I understand what's wrong with the former kind, but what's wrong with
the latter? Why do you think the
> > I still think NTP should have distribute TAI, but I understand using
>
> Was your failure to form a past-participle a Freudian slip? I'm with you
> if you really mean "NTP should distribute TAI"!!!
Uh, probably yes. I didn't even see the grammer error when I re-read
it the first time just now
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Tim Shepard wrote:
wot, no attribution of quotes?
> > >and you still cannot even get it [TAI] reliably from your
>
> I still think NTP should have distribute TAI, but I understand using
Was your failure to form a past-participle a Freudian slip? I'm with you
if you really mean
On Jan 10, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Let me see if understood that right: In order to avoid computing
problems and to get precise time, astronomers rely on a timescale
without leapseconds, because the Earths rotation is too unstable a
clock for their purposes.
Just like ever
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>> 2. Julian Date (JD)
>>
>> [...] For that
>> purpose it is recommended that JD be specified as SI seconds in
>> Terrestrial Time (TT) where the length of day is 86,400 SI seconds.
Let me see if understood that right: In order to avoid computin
On Jan 10, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Peter Bunclark wrote:On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Bunclark writes: Good grief. MJD is used widely in astronomy, for example in variablility studies where you want a real number to represent time rather than deal wit
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Bunclark writes:
> >On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Tom Van Baak wrote:
> >> have no leap seconds. Astronomers appear to avoid
> >> using MJD altogether.
> >
> >Good grief. MJD is used widely in astronomy, for example in v
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Bunclark writes:
>On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Tom Van Baak wrote:
>> have no leap seconds. Astronomers appear to avoid
>> using MJD altogether.
>
>Good grief. MJD is used widely in astronomy, for example in variablility
>studies where you want a real number to repres
> > have no leap seconds. Astronomers appear to avoid
> > using MJD altogether.
>
> Good grief. MJD is used widely in astronomy, for example in variablility
> studies where you want a real number to represent time rather than deal
> with the complications of parsing a date. It tends to be written
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Tom Van Baak wrote:
> have no leap seconds. Astronomers appear to avoid
> using MJD altogether.
Good grief. MJD is used widely in astronomy, for example in variablility
studies where you want a real number to represent time rather than deal
with the complications of parsing a
> I've had many heated arguments with co-workers about what the right
> thing to do here. Do you compute the day as if it had an extra
> second, thus breaking the ability to subtract two MJD numbers to get a
> meaningful elapsed time? Or, do you ignore the leap second entirely,
> giving discontin
11 matches
Mail list logo
