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 in the nordic
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 March
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 either all
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 of
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
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
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
amount of
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, and
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 currently
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.
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 pretending
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
