Re: NOT A cruel fraud!

2006-01-22 Thread Ed Davies
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.

Re: NOT A cruel fraud!

2006-01-22 Thread M. Warner Losh
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 claims are

Re: NOT A cruel fraud!

2006-01-22 Thread M. Warner Losh
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 : this is

Re: NOT A cruel fraud!

2006-01-22 Thread Peter Bunclark
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 to

Approach to leap second discussion

2006-01-22 Thread Ed Davies
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

Re: the tail wags the dog

2006-01-22 Thread Michael Sokolov
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, but the

Re: NOT A cruel fraud!

2006-01-22 Thread James Maynard
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

Re: Risks of change to UTC

2006-01-22 Thread Michael Sokolov
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 call

Re: the tail wags the dog

2006-01-22 Thread Nero Imhard
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

Re: Approach to leap second discussion

2006-01-22 Thread Rob Seaman
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

Re: Approach to leap second discussion

2006-01-22 Thread Ed Davies
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

Re: Risks of change to UTC

2006-01-22 Thread Mark Calabretta
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 have

Re: Risks of change to UTC

2006-01-22 Thread Mark Calabretta
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 -

A modest proposal

2006-01-22 Thread James Maynard
(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

Re: NOT A cruel fraud!

2006-01-22 Thread M. Warner Losh
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

Re: NOT A cruel fraud!

2006-01-22 Thread M. Warner Losh
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. It

Re: the tail wags the dog

2006-01-22 Thread M. Warner Losh
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 the