Re: Defining our terms (was Re: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice)

2006-01-07 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
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

Re: Defining our terms (was Re: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice)

2006-01-07 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
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

Re: Defining our terms (was Re: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice)

2006-01-07 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
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

Re: Longer leap second notice

2006-01-06 Thread John Cowan
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

Defining our terms (was Re: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice)

2006-01-06 Thread Rob Seaman
I said (and continue to assert): civil time (as we know it) IS mean solar time John Cowan demurs: Why do you persist in claiming that all parties must certainly agree on something that is precisely the point most in dispute? No communication with you is possible until you accept that there

Re: Defining our terms (was Re: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice)

2006-01-06 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
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

Re: Defining our terms (was Re: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice)

2006-01-06 Thread William Thompson
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

Re: Defining our terms (was Re: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice)

2006-01-06 Thread Steve Allen
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

Re: Longer leap second notice

2006-01-05 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
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

Fwd: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice

2006-01-04 Thread Rob Seaman
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.

Re: Longer leap second notice

2006-01-04 Thread M. Warner Losh
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.

Re: Longer leap second notice

2006-01-04 Thread Rob Seaman
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 million. A thousand year horizon for scheduling leap

Re: Longer leap second notice

2006-01-04 Thread jcowan
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

Re: Longer leap second notice

2006-01-04 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
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

Re: Longer leap second notice

2006-01-04 Thread Tom Van Baak
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

Re: Longer leap second notice

2006-01-04 Thread John Cowan
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

Re: Longer leap second notice, was: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Ed Davies
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 leapseconds. Rob Seaman replied: No. Rather all

Re: Longer leap second notice, was: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
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

Re: Longer leap second notice, was: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Rob Seaman
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

Re: Longer leap second notice, was: Where the responsibility lies

2006-01-03 Thread Warner Losh
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