In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mark Calabretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Sat 2006/01/21 10:11:04 PDT, "M. Warner Losh" wrote
: in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
:
: >You really should read the archives of this list. We've been over
: >this in great detail. TAI is spe
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Sokolov) writes:
: Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
: > The CGPM recommendation on the timescale everyone should use says UTC.
: >
: > UTC(insert your national time service here) is available in real time.
: >
: > TAI is
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Mr. Losh and I have apologized to each other, off list. I think we
: should now retire the "cruel fraud" subject line.
Yes. I was too hard on Mr. Maynard and I appologize for my rough
treatment of him here.
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Bunclark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > The short answer is that you cannot get a time feed of TAI, so the
: >
: So isn't this one of the things we want to fix in the brave new world of
: joined-up timek
(But not the famous one from Jonathan Swift!)
Perhaps standard time and frequency broadcast stations could disseminate
both UTC and TAI (or TI, if that is desired). Civil time would remain
tied to UTC, but TAI (or TI) would also be widely available.
Consider, for instance, the audio stream from
On Sat 2006/01/21 15:15:32 PDT, "M. Warner Losh" wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>Somewhere around betwee 45,000-80,000 you'll need more than one leap
>second a day.
You should recognize this as a reductio ad absurdum argument; at that
time there will be 86401 SI seconds per day
On Sat 2006/01/21 10:11:04 PDT, "M. Warner Losh" wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>You really should read the archives of this list. We've been over
>this in great detail. TAI is specifically contraindicated as a time
I don't think new contributors (or even old ones) should hav
Rob Seaman wrote:
I hope we can all continue this discussion in a more positive manner.
I'm of the opinion that messages on this list (no matter how
"tricky" :-) are always positive. Timekeeping is a fundamental
issue. It would be remarkable if there weren't diverse opinions.
Any negative asp
I hope we can all continue this discussion in a more positive manner.
I'm of the opinion that messages on this list (no matter how
"tricky" :-) are always positive. Timekeeping is a fundamental
issue. It would be remarkable if there weren't diverse opinions.
Any negative aspects of this discus
Michael Sokolov wrote:
Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TAI is the mathematical (really the political or diplomatic) entity
upon which UTC is ostensibly based, but the practical and legal
reality is the other way around.
Has it occurred to any of you that *THIS* is the very root of
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once we have accomplished the former [changing the basis of civil time],
> I don't give a hoot about the latter [hobbling UTC].
> Keep UTC if you want.
Then what are you doing here? Why don't you go to your elected
representatives in whatever country you c
Mr. Losh and I have apologized to each other, off list. I think we
should now retire the "cruel fraud" subject line.
--
James Maynard
Salem, Oregon, USA
Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The CGPM recommendation on the timescale everyone should use says UTC.
>
> UTC(insert your national time service here) is available in real time.
>
> TAI is the mathematical (really the political or diplomatic) entity
> upon which UTC is ostensibly based, b
The way I think exploration in this group should be going is to
seriously examine what engineering steps can be taken to deal with
leap seconds properly. This means looking at changes to Posix and
NTP, new protocols for disseminating leap second information,
new APIs for accessing clock informati
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>
> The short answer is that you cannot get a time feed of TAI, so the
>
So isn't this one of the things we want to fix in the brave new world of
joined-up timekeeping? Distribute (very close to) TAI, keep the kernel
PLLs sweet, move leap second handling t
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ed Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Earlier, I wrote:
: > We all know that it (and any other world-wide timescale) is
: > "postal" at the level of the time it takes light to cross a
: > moderately small room but for microsecond precision and looser
:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ed Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > : > TAI is specifically contraindicated as a time
: > : > scale.
: > :
: > : > TAI is not currently recommended by its creators as a viable time
: > : > scale.
: > : >
: > :
: > : These
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote on 2006-01-21 19:30 UTC:
> On 21 Jan 2006 at 10:11, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > I maintain that for human activity, there's no need for leap seconds
> > at all. In each person's lifetime, the accumulated error is on the
> > order of a few minutes. Over generations, the prob
Earlier, I wrote:
We all know that it (and any other world-wide timescale) is
"postal" at the level of the time it takes light to cross a
moderately small room but for microsecond precision and looser
this is not an issue.
I ought to qualify that. There are, of course, time scales which
are sy
M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > TAI is specifically contraindicated as a time
: > scale.
:
: > TAI is not currently recommended by its creators as a viable time
: > scale.
: >
:
: These claims are intellectually fraudulent. The archives in fact support
: the opposite of what Mr. Losh contends.
Act
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: If "we've been over this in great detail," I would like a more specific
: reference to the postings that did so. Also, "we've been over this in
: great detail" seems not to have settled the issue.
We have been
On Sat 2006-01-21T23:19:53 -0700, Neal McBurnett hath writ:
> Right. These statements are in direct contradiction to the report of
> the CCTF in 1999. And as recently as last year, the United States
> Naval Observatory discussion of the options noted the benefits of
> using TAI.
The official tim
22 matches
Mail list logo
