In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Thompson writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Universal Time = confusing term which comes handy when trying to
manipulate discussions about leap second futures.
I have to take issue with this one.
My point was that when you just say
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
On Sat 2006-01-07T00:32:44 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
UTC
UTC(time) = TAI(time) + Leap(time)
Owned by ITU.
IERS evaluates Leap(time) according ITU definition
Not quite. The
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
On Sat 2006-01-07T00:32:44 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
At the beginning of 1984 and at the beginning of 2003 the branches of
the IERS responsible for UT1 followed new IAU
Clive D.W. Feather scripsit:
John Cowan said:
Barry gules and argent of seven and six,John Cowan
on a canton azure fifty molets of the second. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--blazoning the U.S. flag http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
You don't get odd numbers of barry. It's
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
Perhaps what we need is simply to define our terms. A lot of the
friction on LEAPSECS undoubtedly comes from conflicting meanings.
Good point.
Civil Time = the common basis for diverse time usage worldwide
No.
Civil Time is a legal
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Universal Time = confusing term which comes handy when trying to
manipulate discussions about leap second futures.
I have to take issue with this one. It's obvious from the current definition
and terminology used with Coordinated Universal
On Sat 2006-01-07T00:32:44 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
TAI
Owned by BIPM / Metre Convention
This is indisputably agreed to be true since the demise of the BIH.
I know of no endorsement for the use of TAI outside of metrological
circumstances.
UTC
John Cowan said:
Barry gules and argent of seven and six,John Cowan
on a canton azure fifty molets of the second. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--blazoning the U.S. flag http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
You don't get odd numbers of barry. It's Gules, six bars argent.
--
Clive
On Jan 3, 2006, at 5:46 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
As someone who has fought the battles, I can tell you that a simple
table is 10x or 100x easier to implement than dealing with parsing
the data from N streams. Sure, it limits the lifetime of the
device, but a 20 year limit is very reasonable.
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Jan 3, 2006, at 5:46 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
:
: As someone who has fought the battles, I can tell you that a simple
: table is 10x or 100x easier to implement than dealing with parsing
: the data from N streams.
Rob Seaman scripsit:
Little support - and again, to a certain level of precision (easily
better than a second per day), all parties must certainly agree that
civil time (as we know it)
Why do you persist in claiming that all parties must certainly agree
on something that is precisely the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
Hi Warner,
A more apt comparison would be to the leap year rules that we
have. We know the rules going
forward a thousand years or so.
Apt indeed. Leap seconds are scheduled at least six months in
advance. That's about one part in 15
A more apt comparison would be to the leap year rules that we
have. We know the rules going
forward a thousand years or so.
Apt indeed. Leap seconds are scheduled at least six months in
advance. That's about one part in 15 million. A thousand year
horizon for scheduling leap days is
Ed Davies scripsit:
The main requirements for local civil time for the bulk of its
users are that:
Agreed.
1. local civil time matches apparent solar time roughly (e.g., the
sun is pretty high in the sky at 12:00 and it's dark at 00:00).
I think the last is the important point, or
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ed Davies writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the
leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers
that survive longer than that would need to update the factory
installed table of
On Jan 3, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ed Davies writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the
leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers
that survive longer than that would
I continue to find the focus on general purpose computing
infrastructure to be unpersuasive. If we can convince hardware and
software vendors to pay enough attention to timing requirements to
implement such a strategy, we can convince them to implement a more
complete time handling
17 matches
Mail list logo
