Rob Seaman scripsit:
> Time is a fundamental element of all that we do. Surely public
> policy should not be governed by a drab and dystopian vision of
> a fragmented planet scrabbling randomly to keep our disjoint
> clocks aligned.
I agree. But I don't agree, of course, that the TI-based versi
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:09:20AM -0700, Rob Seaman wrote:
>On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:46 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> In the end, it will be impossible to maintain the notion that a solar
> day is 24h of 60m of 60s each: we wind up, IIRC, with the solar day
> and lunar month both at abo
On Mon 2006/01/16 00:40:28 CDT, John Cowan wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>I realize the ALHP has severe problems with this, but I don't approve
>of the ALHP anyhow (save perhaps tactically, as explained).
Agreement!
But does anyone think that the leap hour proposal is anythin
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> I just continue to enjoy the fact that folks
> with completely opposite points of view about civil timekeeping have
> the same low opinion about leap hours :-)
Feel free to adopt the acronym "ALHP".
> ...and Algeria had the freedom to do so precisely because UTC existed
>
On Jan 15, 2006, at 10:40 PM, John Cowan wrote:I realize the ALHP has severe problems with this, but I don't approve of the ALHP anyhow (save perhaps tactically, as explained).Nothing to add to this. I just continue to enjoy the fact that folks with completely opposite points of view about civil t
Mark Calabretta scripsit:
> If you go through the exercise trying to tie leap hours to DST, as I
> challenged, you will discover that it raises many questions that are not
> addressed by the leap hour proposal.
I realize the ALHP has severe problems with this, but I don't approve
of the ALHP anyh
On Fri 2006/01/13 18:39:01 CDT, John Cowan wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>> The situation with the proposed leap hour is quite different. Given
>> that AEST is defined as UTC+1000, and AEDT as UTC+1100, would someone
>> care to speculate, in terms similar to the above, what wi
On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:46 AM, John Cowan wrote: In the end, it will be impossible to maintain the notion that a solarday is 24h of 60m of 60s each: we wind up, IIRC, with the solar dayand lunar month both at about 47 current solar days. There's a lot of difference between what happens over a billio
Mark Calabretta scripsit:
> The situation with the proposed leap hour is quite different. Given
> that AEST is defined as UTC+1000, and AEDT as UTC+1100, would someone
> care to speculate, in terms similar to the above, what will happen when
> a leap hour is inserted?
Perhaps the two scales will
> It should be clear that the gaps and repeats are fictitious, especially
> if you think of AEST and AEDT as existing beyond the times when they are
> in legal use. Putting it in practical terms, suppose I have a traffic
> accident at 0230 on 2006/04/02, what time will the police officer write
> i
On Jan 13, 2006, at 4:20 AM, Ed Davies wrote:
There's nothing in this text which would stop the IERS continuing
to issue leap seconds as they do now except they'd have to do it
five years in advance so would, presumably, have to relax the ±0.9
seconds requirement somewhat.
An excellent point!
Rob Seaman quoted:
Operational rules
(after UTC 21 December of the transition year)
1 Tolerance
The difference of UT1 from UTC should not exceed ±1h.
2 Adjustments to UTC
2.1Adjustments to the UTC time-scale should be made as
determined by the IERS
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> And the point I'm making is that you can't shift timezones at will to
> accomplish this without creating seams in legally realized time.
We already have seams in legally recognized time.
> Just making the dark "stay put" would result in ambiguous
> timekeeping. Daylight s
On Jan 12, 2006, at 10:07 PM, John Cowan wrote:If local is the middle of the night, the practical requirements of legal time are pretty much satisfied.And the point I'm making is that you can't shift timezones at will to accomplish this without creating seams in legally realized time. Just ma
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> I went rummaging through the ITU proposal and back as far as Torino.
> Found this comment from a LEAPSECS thread on 28 July 2003:
>
> >>> At Torino the proponents of omitting leap seconds supposed that the
> >>> governments of the world might handle this situation using leap
On Jan 12, 2006, at 12:36 AM, John Cowan wrote:No one, at least not on this list, is arguing for an alignment of theabsurd leap hour proposal (henceforth ALHP) with DST changes.I went rummaging through the ITU proposal and back as far as Torino. Found this comment from a LEAPSECS thread on 28 July
On Thu 2006/01/12 02:36:44 CDT, John Cowan wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>We already have that repeated time sequence and gap in much of the world,
>and live with it. These repetitions would be no better and no worse;
>when a gap is present, the local sovereignty can omit the
John Cowan wrote:
[If TAI - 33 s were taken as the new basis for civil timescales, then]
> It is UTC that would be eliminated as the basis for local time. It could
> be maintained for such other purposes as anyone might have.
Yes, the IERS could maintain it as the timescale for a tim
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> Folks have been tossing around the notion of aligning this with daylight
> saving time - but DST in what locality? Does anyone really believe that
> a leap hour would be introduced on different calendar dates worldwide?
> (It seems to me that the one time it is guaranteed N
What now, Dr. Moebius? Prepare your minds for a new scale... of physical scientific values, gentlemen.Mark Calabretta takes the lazy man's way out and appeals to facts: Here in a topology-free way is what the axis labels of my graph looklike during th
20 matches
Mail list logo
