On Fri 2005-02-25T09:24:56 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> It semantically would make a lot of sense to retain the name UTC
> and get rid of the leapseconds.
Except that we already have another name for that time scale
TAI
In the long run it will be interesting to see how or whether variou
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Clive D.W. Feather
" writes:
>* "Universal" Time is a *really* stupid name for a time scale based on
> the variable rotations of one small piece of rock.
Indeed.
But back when UTC was named the universe was a lot smaller :-)
It semantically would make a lot of
Rob Seaman said:
> No reasonable standard can be based on constraining the behavior of our
> descendants 600 years hence.
In what way is the requirement "|DUT| <= 0.9s" not "constraining the
behaviour of our descendants 600 years hence"?
While I understand your argument about the name UTC:
* *EVE
Tom Van Baak scripsit:
> Rob, this will always be true, won't it? Whether you
> have 100 ms time step adjustments, or 100 x e-10
> rate adjustments, leap seconds, or leap hours it
> seems to me there has been and will always be an
> honest attempt to "coordinate" the two scales.
No, no. Leap hou
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> Not silly - and not secular. Astronomers (at least) use the term
> "secular" to imply monotonic - and therefore cumulative - effects.
Ah, I didn't grasp that point, and was merely using it to mean "not
periodic".
> TZ changes mentioned are merely examples of single isolat
> UTC is a useful approximation to GMT.
Rob, this will always be true, won't it? Whether you
have 100 ms time step adjustments, or 100 x e-10
rate adjustments, leap seconds, or leap hours it
seems to me there has been and will always be an
honest attempt to "coordinate" the two scales.
The questi
There have been genuinely secular changes in zone, call them silly or
not: Pacific/Enderbury (Phoenix Islands Time) changed its time zone
from -11:00 to +13:00 in 1995, and Asia/Kashgar (extreme
western China) changed its time zone from -5:00 to -8:00 in 1980-05
(its LMT is 5:03:56).
Not silly - a
On Wed 2005-02-23T23:02:14 -0800, Steve Allen hath writ:
> [ the New South Wales bill ]
> defines UTC as being determined by the BIPM.
> So it remains unclear who ultimately controls the fate of civil time
> in New South Wales.
There is sociology behind this statement.
W. Lewandowski is Principa
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> "Ad hoc" is not a synonym for secular. I'm pleased to see someone
> other than the astronomers in this conversation using the word secular,
> but there continues to be a fundamental confusion of Daylight Saving
> clock adjustments (periodic) with the silly notion of leap ho
John Cowan says:
Secular changes in time zones (if by "time zone" you mean "LCT - UTC",
as I suppose) are something we already know how to handle, as they
must be taken into account when determining historical UTC/GMT to LCT
conversion. Indeed, some countries jigger the dates of their
semiannual ti
Steve Allen scripsit:
> Yes. But I can't say whether they value the immediate practicality of
> uniform time over the need to change all time zones by an hour 600
> years from now, and more and more often after that.
*sigh*
Secular changes in time zones (if by "time zone" you mean "LCT - UTC",
On Tue 2005-02-22T18:27:36 -0800, Steve Allen hath writ:
> Australia has decided to redefine its legal time scale.
The bill was introduced today.
Details of Bill 11 are found here.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/isys/isyswebext.exe?op=get&uri=/isysquery/irl66ce/1/doc/#hit1
The text of t
On Wed 2005-02-23T09:07:30 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ:
> A big question throughout all of the UTC discussions over the past five
> years is who "they" are and whether they have the ability to form a
> clear and consistent intent in the first place.
I think that the cast of characters is pretty cl
Steve Allen writes:
Australia has decided to redefine its legal time scale.
http://abc.net.au/science/news/space/SpaceRepublish_1307267.htm
The last line in the article implies other jurisdictions are doing the
same. The exact text of the laws would be interesting in order to see
whether they inte
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Markus Kuhn writes:
>It seems that apart from the English versions, they all use an
>equivalent of either the French "temps universel" (universal time) or
>the German "Weltzeit" (world time). Oddly, of the ones I checked, only
>the Danish version explicitely mention
Steve Allen wrote on 2005-02-23 02:27 UTC:
> http://abc.net.au/science/news/space/SpaceRepublish_1307267.htm
> The last line in the article implies other jurisdictions are doing the same.
Or have done the same long ago ...
The EU summer time directive remains agnostic on the issue and
(deliberate
Australia has decided to redefine its legal time scale.
http://abc.net.au/science/news/space/SpaceRepublish_1307267.htm
The last line in the article implies other jurisdictions are doing the
same. The exact text of the laws would be interesting in order to see
whether they intend that UTC be mat
17 matches
Mail list logo
