### Re: MJD and leap seconds

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

### Re: MJD and leap seconds

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 represent time

### Re: MJD and leap seconds

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 variablility

### Re: MJD and leap seconds

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 with

### Re: MJD and leap seconds

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 computing problems

### Re: MJD and leap seconds

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

### Re: The real problem with leap seconds

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 NTP

### Re: The real problem with leap seconds

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.

### Re: The real problem with leap seconds

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 they