### Re: Problems with GLONASS Raw Receiver Data at Start of New Year

On Jan 14, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Richard Langley wrote: The problem existed for only 2-1/2 minutes, not hours. Thanks for the clarification. Might be coincidental with the leap second but I've not noticed this problem at other times. Would be a significant coincidence. Any simple explanation

### Re: The real problem with leap seconds

On Fri 2006/01/13 14:20:21 -, Michael Deckers wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL Then why can the IERS express UTC in the MJD notation? Good point. The only such usage I am aware of is in IERS Bulletin A where the MJD column is given without saying even whether it's UTC,

### Re: The real problem with leap seconds

On Fri 2006/01/13 11:45:13 -, Ed Davies wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL If you don't count the leap seconds then the good news is that days are all 86 400 seconds long but the bad news is that the real is undefined during the leap second and there's a discontinuity (or

### Re: The real problem with leap seconds

On Fri 2006/01/13 16:45:33 -, Michael Deckers wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL Right, UTC timestamps are ambiguous (in the sense that the ... would have been ambiguous ... corresponding TAI value is not known) in the vicinity of positive leap seconds, and the

### Re: Monsters from the id

On Fri 2006/01/13 18:39:01 CDT, John Cowan wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL The situation with the proposed leap hour is quite different. Given that AEST is defined as UTC+1000, and AEDT as UTC+1100, would someone care to speculate, in terms similar to the above, what will

### Re: Monsters from the id

Mark Calabretta scripsit: If you go through the exercise trying to tie leap hours to DST, as I challenged, you will discover that it raises many questions that are not addressed by the leap hour proposal. I realize the ALHP has severe problems with this, but I don't approve of the ALHP anyhow