On Tue 2005-01-25T09:57:46 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
> I think you're out by a factor of 10. Would the Man On The Clapham Omnibus
> be able to identify the solstice or equinox to within 14 days? Other than
> knowing the "conventional" dates?
>
> [That is, if the equinox was actually on M
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Clive D.W. Feather" writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>>> [That is, if the equinox was actually on March 9th, would anyone outside
>>> the astronomical community notice?]
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> I'm not so certain about the summer and winter solstice however.
>> here
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>> [That is, if the equinox was actually on March 9th, would anyone outside
>> the astronomical community notice?]
>
> I doubt it.
>
> I'm not so certain about the summer and winter solstice however.
> here in the nordic countries were're quite emotionally attached to
> thos
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Clive D.W. Feather" writes:
>Tom Van Baak said:
>> It seems to me the popular understanding of a year
>> is accurate to +/-1 day.
>
>I think you're out by a factor of 10. Would the Man On The Clapham Omnibus
>be able to identify the solstice or equinox to within 14
Tom Van Baak said:
> It seems to me the popular understanding of a year
> is accurate to +/-1 day.
I think you're out by a factor of 10. Would the Man On The Clapham Omnibus
be able to identify the solstice or equinox to within 14 days? Other than
knowing the "conventional" dates?
[That is, if th
Tom Van Baak scripsit:
> Another observation is that our local newspaper always
> prints Sun and Moon rise and set times. But not time
> of noon. Why is this? Maybe it's just our paper (noon
> implies sun and we don't see much of it here in Seattle).
Some people need to know sunset for religious
Steve Allen scripsit:
> What we are being told by the Time Lords is that, starting from a date
> in the near future, knowing when noon is will also be a specialist
> operation.
Already true.
For many months of the year, solar noon is closer to 1 PM, or even 1:30
PM, in a great many countries, an
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Allen writes:
>On Mon 2005-01-24T00:50:10 -0800, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
>> Isn't knowing when noon is already a specialist operation?
>> I mean, most people could tell you when noon is to within
>> an hour or two or three, but finer than that requires a far
>>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Markus Kuhn writes:
>You surely must have seen my detailed UTS proposal for how UTC leap
>seconds should be handled trivially and safely by the overwhelming
>majority of computer applications, without any special considerations
>whatsoever by normal application prog
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on 2005-01-24 09:32 UTC:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Markus Kuhn writes:
>
> >In summary: There are basically three proposals on the table:
> >
> > a) Keep UTC as it is (|UTC - UT1| < 900 ms) and just make TAI more
> > widely available in time signal broadcasts
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Markus Kuhn writes:
>In summary: There are basically three proposals on the table:
>
> a) Keep UTC as it is (|UTC - UT1| < 900 ms) and just make TAI more
> widely available in time signal broadcasts
>
> b) Move from frequent UTC leap seconds to far less freque
On Mon 2005-01-24T00:50:10 -0800, Tom Van Baak hath writ:
> Isn't knowing when noon is already a specialist operation?
> I mean, most people could tell you when noon is to within
> an hour or two or three, but finer than that requires a far
> amount of daily mental calculation, no?
Noon has long r
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Van Baak writes:
>Another observation is that our local newspaper always
>prints Sun and Moon rise and set times. But not time
>of noon. Why is this? Maybe it's just our paper (noon
>implies sun and we don't see much of it here in Seattle).
>
>Why is the instant
Steve Allen wrote on 2005-01-24 06:09 UTC:
> But the current strategy of retaining the name UTC creates one real
> and unresolvable problem that will persist indefinitely. It is very
> bad policy to corrupt the historical meaning of anything called
> "Universal Time" by redefining UTC to be someth
John Cowan wrote on 2005-01-23 18:37 UTC:
> Markus Kuhn scripsit:
>
> > UTC currently certainly has *no* two 1-h leaps every year.
>
> There seems to be persistent confusion on what is meant by the term
> "leap hour".
Why?
> I understand it as a secular change to the various LCT offsets,
> made e
Steve,
Some comments on your fine posting...
> But Essen claims for himself (in both this autobiography
> and in Metrologia
I found the Metrologia article interesting. I had heard
of 100 ms steps (leap tenth-seconds) but not the 50
ms steps.
Did you notice he appears to refer to a leap second
w
On Thu 2005-01-20T14:59:18 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ:
> Leap seconds are a perfectly workable mechanism. Systems
> that don't need time-of-day should use TAI. Systems that do need
> time-of-day often benefit from the 0.9s approximation to UT1 that UTC
> currently provides. Let's stop pretendin
Markus Kuhn scripsit:
> UTC currently certainly has *no* two 1-h leaps every year.
There seems to be persistent confusion on what is meant by the term
"leap hour". I understand it as a secular change to the various LCT offsets,
made either all at once (on 1 Jan 2600, say) or on an ad-lib basis.
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on 2005-01-23 09:00 UTC:
> >any "leap
> >hours" that prevented this would, if ever implemented, be even more
> >traumatic than leap seconds are now.
>
> they already happen here twice a year, and by now even
> Microsoft has gotten it right.
OBJECTION, your Time Lords!
UTC
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel R. Tobias" writes:
>Some of the proposals, however, seek to decouple civil time
>altogether from solar time, an unprecedented step which would
>possibly lead to day and night being completely reversed; any "leap
>hours" that prevented this would, if ever imp
I sure hope that the future of mankind's timekeeping systems doesn't
get decided by an Internet flame war between contending groups of
geeks...
As I see it, the dispute comes from the fact that people want two
different, irreconcilable types of "time", time of day (earth/solar
angle) and constant
21 matches
Mail list logo
