Re: ideas for new UTC rules

2006-04-15 Thread Tim Shepard
. -Tim Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Comparing Time Scales

2006-02-04 Thread Tim Shepard
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]

Re: Comparing Time Scales

2006-02-04 Thread Tim Shepard
. -Tim Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: wikipedia Leap Seconds collaboration

2006-01-23 Thread Tim Shepard
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

Re: The real problem with leap seconds

2006-01-13 Thread 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

Re: The real problem with leap seconds

2006-01-10 Thread 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]

Re: The real problem with leap seconds

2006-01-09 Thread Tim Shepard
). -Tim Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: went pretty dang smoothly at this end

2006-01-01 Thread Tim Shepard
? -Tim Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED]

knowing what time it is

2005-08-31 Thread Tim Shepard
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