Ashley Yakeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to see an elastic "civil second" to which SI nanoseconds are
> added or removed.
Ditto! I have always been in favor of rubber seconds, and specifically
civil second. I believe that the *CIVIL* second should have its own
definition completely
Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll offer a crude paraphrase of the viewpoints on the issue of
> knowing the interval to a date a year in the future:
You would have a much easier time (pun) predicting the interval in SI
seconds to a calendar date a year in the future if you use the Repu
Daniel R. Tobias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why people always feel compelled to use proprietary Microsoftism file
> formats for things that could be epressed perfectly fine in plain
> ASCII text I have no idea.
Would you or anyone else on the list be so kind as to provide an ASCII
translation o
Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is, however, that nothing - absolutely nothing -
> would then protect legal timekeeping in the U.S. or elsewhere from
> the whims of future timekeepers at the ITU.
>
> Say we go with leap hours. UTC isn't therefore less malleable than
> currently
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All your points are correct, but it doesn't change the fact that
> there was no 1845-12-31 in Manila, any more than there was a
> second labeled 2006-04-02T00:02:30 in New York.
Perhaps you meant 2006-04-02T02:30:00?
MS
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
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
Ed Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UTC is expressible as a real number in just the same way that
> Gregorian dates (with months with different lengths and leap
> days) can be with the Julian calendar.
>
> There's no difference in principle between converting from a
> TAI time in seconds since
Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this rather humorous document you have managed to say that POSIX
> screwed up badly. We already knew that :-)
What does this have to do with POSIX? The word POSIX does not appear in
my article.
MS
Steve Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I read it right you have reinvented Markus Kuhn's UTS [...]
Close to it, but...
Ed Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> followed up:
> Also, Markus wasn't proposing UTS as a civil timescale but just
> for use within computer systems, etc.
Therein lies the key
Please ignore this post. It got away because I was connected to my UNIX
host from my girlfriend's PC over her cable Internet connection which is
probably the crappiest in the world as I was composing a reply to some
posts on this list, and as it crapped out on me, the mail process on the
UNIX host
IL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Status: RO
On Sat 2006-01-07T07:39:58 +, Michael
Hello,
I am a new entrant into the leap second debate and I have just written a
paper in which I have outlined what I think is the real problem with UTC
and leap seconds as they are currently implemented and a proposed
solution. I have put the article on my web page:
http://ivan.Harhan.ORG/~msok
13 matches
Mail list logo
