.
-Tim Shepard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
would get
all the way up to 86,400,999,999,999 nano seconds in the day before we
wrapped around that field to zero and incremented the day number (one
nanosecond later).
-Tim Shepard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
for people on this list to help improve the
wikipedia's coverage of articles related to time keeping, but the
wikipedia article is not an appropriate place for a group attempting
to hash out a consensus on a mailing list to record all of its thoughts.
-Tim Shepard
, then UTC is probably not the right time scale for you
to be using (at least not directly).
If a fuzz of +/- 1 second doesn't bother you, then you can pretend
that UTC is UT, and things are easier.
For the time scale experts on this list, did I get that right?
-Tim Shepard
though I won't get
that much notice.)
leap hours are a horrible idea, whether they be leap hours inserted
in to some UTC-like global standard, or by local jurisdictions.
Well, those are my opinions. Thanks for listening.
-Tim Shepard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
).
-Tim Shepard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
-Tim Shepard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and pending leap seconds.
So that's all ideal.
But we're in a mess now.
Is it reasonable to hope we may be able to somehow get to the ideal
I've described? In maybe 10 or 15 years?
It seems what is needed most is education.
-Tim Shepard
[EMAIL
