Re: building consensus

2006-06-13 Thread Mark Calabretta
On Mon 2006/06/05 22:04:40 -0400, John Cowan wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL All your points are correct, but it doesn't change the fact that there was no 1845-12-31 in Manila, any more than there was a second labeled 2006-04-02T00:02:30 in New York. There were two such, one

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread David Malone
I belive this was because the year followed the taxation cycle of the government whereas the day+month followed the religiously inherited tradtion. Indeed. For that matter, the start of the U.K. tax year was left alone when the calendar changed, and is now 6 April (it should be 7 April,

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Rob Seaman said: In the UK in 1750, there were two different Julian calendars in use: the day and month enumeration matched, but year numbers changed at different dates (1st January in Scotland, 25th March in England and Wales). I've heard this said, but what exactly does this mean from the

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Zefram said: Looks a lot like that. They used not to be, though: it seems that the oldest convention was to start the counted year on January 1, where Julius had put (well, left) the start of the calendar year. Um, March was the first month of the year; look at the derivation of September,

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Poul-Henning Kamp said: 22 March 1750 23 March 1750 24 March 1750 25 March 1751 26 March 1751 27 March 1751 I belive this was because the year followed the taxation cycle of the government whereas the day+month followed the religiously inherited

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Ed Davies said: Yes, I think that's right. And, as I understand it, we still keep that change of year in mid-month but now it's on April 5th for the change of tax year. When we switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar the tax year was kept the same length so its date changed. That

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
John Cowan said: References for this? Your explanation makes a lot of sense and I'm prepared to be convinced, but have been skeptical of experimental design as applied to questions of human behavior since participating in studies as a requirement of undergraduate psychology coursework. And

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Zefram
Clive D.W. Feather wrote: So humans will cope until the solar day is about 27 (present) hours long, after which we'll probably start to move to a system of two sleep-wake cycles per day. I doubt our ability to handle a 14-hour sleep-wake cycle. I suspect that (if we're

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Rob Seaman
Clive D.W. Feather wrote: March was the first month of the year; look at the derivation of September, for example. Makes the zero vs. one indexing question of C and FORTRAN programmers look sane. I've pointed people to the whole 7, 8, 9, 10 sequence from September to December on those

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Peter Bunclark
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Rob Seaman wrote: Clive D.W. Feather wrote: March was the first month of the year; look at the derivation of September, for example. Makes the zero vs. one indexing question of C and FORTRAN programmers look sane. I've pointed people to the whole 7, 8, 9, 10 sequence

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Rob Seaman
John Cowan wrote: In the cover story, it was used as a final defense against the Invaders and destroyed by them. In the true story, it was destroyed because it constituted a hazard, but I forget exactly how. Thanks! But not sure true story is the opposite of cover story, here :-) Both

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Peter Bunclark
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Rob Seaman wrote: I thought Julius renamed some high value summer month and wanna-be Augustus did likewise, stealing a day from February to make August the same length. If they put two extra months in, where were those 62 days originally? Yes of course, and a quick

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Greg Hennessy
Hands up if you wish you had the authority to swing that kind of timekeeping standardization adjustment. It's a lot easier to get consensus if you are willing and able to kill those with opposing viewpoints. :)

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit: Of course, any old I, Claudius fan knows that Augustus was originally named Octavius. Mere coincidence that the eighth child would end up naming the eighth month? Almost certainly. The eighth month was Sextilis, as July was originally Quin(c)tilis. -- John Cowan

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Rob Seaman said: I thought Julius renamed some high value summer month and wanna-be Augustus did likewise, stealing a day from February to make August the same length. If they put two extra months in, where were those 62 days originally? Very briefly: - Julius and Augustus renamed months 5

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Rob Seaman said: John Cowan wrote: In the cover story, it was used as a final defense against the Invaders and destroyed by them. In the true story, it was destroyed because it constituted a hazard, but I forget exactly how. Thanks! But not sure true story is the opposite of cover story,

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread John Cowan
Clive D.W. Feather scripsit: I don't think John's referring to Against the Fall of Night versus The City and the Stars. Rather, at least in the latter, the official (cover) story of Diaspar (sp?) and the Invaders disagrees in many aspects with the true story as revealed by Vandemar (sp?).

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Cowan writes: Rob Seaman scripsit: Old English had its own set of month names entirely unrelated to the Latin ones: if they had survived, they would have been Afteryule, Solmath 'mud-month', Rethe[math] 'rough-month', Astron [pl. of 'Easter'], Thrimilch

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread David Malone
Quintilis was renamed after Julius Caesar. Later Sextilis was renamed after Augustus Caesar. It is often said that the month lengths were changed at the same time, but at least one version of that story is fabricated and there's a distinct lack of evidence for it. Other emperors had months

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jun 8, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: Rob Seaman said: Thanks! But not sure true story is the opposite of cover story, here :-) I don't think John's referring to Against the Fall of Night versus The City and the Stars. Rather, at least in the latter, the official (cover)

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread John Cowan
Poul-Henning Kamp scripsit: Old English had its own set of month names entirely unrelated to the Latin ones: if they had survived, they would have been Afteryule, Solmath 'mud-month', Rethe[math] 'rough-month', Astron [pl. of 'Easter'], Thrimilch 'three-milking', Forelithe, Afterlithe,

Re: building consensus

2006-06-07 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Rob Seaman said: As I've said before, eventually the notion that the solar day contains 24h of 60m of 60s will have to be abandoned. It'll be awfully hard to maintain when an hour involves two human sleep-wake cycles, out in the limit when the Moon is fully tidally locked and 1 lunar month =

Re: building consensus

2006-06-07 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
John Cowan said: Historians aren't exactly consistent on the question. In European history, dates are Julian or Gregorian depending on the location; dates in East Asian history seem to be proleptic Gregorian. Even worse, Julian can have more than one meaning. In the UK in 1750, there were

Re: building consensus

2006-06-07 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jun 7, 2006, at 2:01 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: Actually, the evidence from experiments is that the natural sleep- wake cycle is about 27 hours long, but force-locked to the day-night cycle (it's easier to synchronise a longer free-running timer to a shorter external signal than

Re: building consensus

2006-06-07 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jun 7, 2006, at 2:03 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: In the UK in 1750, there were two different Julian calendars in use: the day and month enumeration matched, but year numbers changed at different dates (1st January in Scotland, 25th March in England and Wales). I've heard this said, but

Re: building consensus

2006-06-07 Thread John Cowan
Poul-Henning Kamp scripsit: I belive this was because the year followed the taxation cycle of the government whereas the day+month followed the religiously inherited tradtion. Indeed. For that matter, the start of the U.K. tax year was left alone when the calendar changed, and is now 6 April

Re: building consensus

2006-06-07 Thread Ed Davies
Rob Seaman wrote: On Jun 7, 2006, at 2:03 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: In the UK in 1750, there were two different Julian calendars in use: the day and month enumeration matched, but year numbers changed at different dates (1st January in Scotland, 25th March in England and Wales). I've

Re: building consensus

2006-06-07 Thread Rob Seaman
Tim Shepard replies: Also hard to imagine how one gracefully transitions from one to two sleep cycles a day. It is already the norm in some places: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siesta Thanks for the chuckle. One is then left wondering whether our far future, Clarkeian Against the Fall

Re: building consensus

2006-06-07 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit: References for this? Your explanation makes a lot of sense and I'm prepared to be convinced, but have been skeptical of experimental design as applied to questions of human behavior since participating in studies as a requirement of undergraduate psychology coursework.

Re: building consensus

2006-06-06 Thread John Cowan
Mark Calabretta scripsit: On Mon 2006/06/05 22:04:40 -0400, John Cowan wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL there was no 1845-12-31 in Manila, any more than there was a As magic tricks go I don't find this one very convincing - I can clearly see the rabbits behind your back. I

Re: building consensus

2006-06-06 Thread Ed Davies
Rob Seaman wrote: Doubt I can lay my hands on the copy of ISO 8601 from my Y2K remediation days. Anybody want to comment on whether it actually attempts to convey the Gregorian algorithm within its pages? Yes, it does. This International Standard uses the Gregorian calendar for the

Re: building consensus

2006-06-06 Thread Zefram
Ed Davies wrote: It's also an interesting quote in that it suggests that the 1875 Convention du mètre is important in the international definition of the Gregorian calendar. Anybody know more on that? I understand that the latest version of ISO 8601 goes further and identifies the date of the

Re: building consensus

2006-06-06 Thread Rob Seaman
Ed Davies quoted:The Gregorian calendar provides a reference system consisting of a,potentially infinite, series of contiguous calendar years. Consecutivecalendar years are identified by sequentially assigned year numbers.A reference point is used which assigns the year  number 1875 to thecalendar

Re: building consensus

2006-06-06 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : This does not express a complete algorithm, of course, since it is : not tied to the days of the week. One presume the zero point of 1875 : was selected as a practical compromise with historical realities. : One

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread John Cowan
M. Warner Losh scripsit: : The designers of Posix time thought it was more important to preserve : the property that dividing the difference between two time_t values : by 60, 3600, 86400 would give minutes, hours, days. That's the one property that Posix time_t does not have. The

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : M. Warner Losh scripsit: : : : The designers of Posix time thought it was more important to preserve : : the property that dividing the difference between two time_t values : : by 60, 3600, 86400 would give

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jun 4, 2006, at 9:57 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote: leap days have a rule, while leap seconds are scheduled. A schedule and a rule are the same thing, just regarded from different historical perspectives. The leap day rule will most certainly have to accommodate scheduling changes over the

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Warner Losh
From: Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] building consensus Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 08:35:39 -0700 On Jun 4, 2006, at 9:57 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote: leap days have a rule, while leap seconds are scheduled. A schedule and a rule are the same thing, just regarded from

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit: A schedule and a rule are the same thing, just regarded from different historical perspectives. The leap day rule will most certainly have to accommodate scheduling changes over the millennia. Fair enough, but there is a huge difference in practical terms between a rule

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Zefram
Warner Losh wrote: A rule implies that it is long term, I guess. Maybe there's a better word for that implication. In the realm of calendars the terminology is arithmetic versus observational. That's one of the things I included at the start of this thread. I'd also like to throw in the word

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Warner Losh
Warner Losh wrote: A rule implies that it is long term, I guess. Maybe there's a better word for that implication. In the realm of calendars the terminology is arithmetic versus observational. That's one of the things I included at the start of this thread. I'd also like to throw in the

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Zefram
Warner Losh wrote: There's a reference to a book http://emr.cs.uiuc.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/index.shtml which is good. This book needs to be treated with caution. (It's like news outlets: they get wrong the things one has specialised knowledge of; extrapolate to what one doesn't know

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jun 5, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Warner Losh wrote:Leap days have an iron-clad rule that generates the schedule on whichthey happen.  Leap seconds have a committee that generates theschedule on which they happen.Further discussion in this thread calls into question the characterization of "iron-clad

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit: So the calendar is either immutable - or it isn't :-) The Gregorian calendar is immutable. Whether it is in use at a certain place is not. Local time is on the Gregorian calendar today in the U.S., but might conceivably be on the Revised Julian or even the Islamic

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:05 PM, John Cowan wrote: (ObOddity: It seems that in Israel, which is on UTC+3, the legal day begins at 1800 local time the day before. This simplifies the accommodation of Israeli and traditional Jewish law.) I wouldn't call this an oddity, but rather an interesting

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit: I wouldn't call this an oddity, but rather an interesting and elegant, one might even say charming, local custom. The logic of this accommodation between 6:-00 pm clock time and a mean sunset demonstrates another weakness in the ALHP, since clock time would drift

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:38 PM, John Cowan wrote: I found another spectacular illustration of how massive the difference between solar and legal time can be. Before 1845, the time in Manila, the Philippines, was the same as Acapulco, Mexico, a discrepancy of 9h16m from Manila solar time. This was

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit: One might suggest that the accommodation between civil time and legal time is of more interest. I'm not sure what you mean by civil time in this context. For some people, civil time is synonymous with standard time; for others, it means the time shown by accurate clocks

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Zefram
Rob Seaman wrote: One might ponder what standards body is responsible for the international calendar specification. Is it the Roman Catholic church? The RCC is authoritative for no calendar other than the RCC calendar. Originally this amounted to an endorsement of the Roman empire's then-current

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:47 PM, John Cowan wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by civil time in this context. I meant whatever we've meant in this forum for the past five years. For some people, civil time is synonymous with standard time; for others, it means the time shown by accurate clocks in

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jun 5, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Rob Seaman wrote: On the other hand, all I've ever meant by the term civil time is that time that a well educated civilian sets her clock in order to agree with other civilians for civilian purposes. I should clarify this to mean the underlying internationalized

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit: I presume you aren't asserting that standard time clocks can't be accurate, but rather distinguishing between standard (timezone) time and local mean solar time? No, I am reflecting the fact that some people define local civil time in such a way as to exclude

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Mark Calabretta
On Mon 2006/06/05 11:07:00 MST, Rob Seaman wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL Julian, just as the Julian succeeded what came before. That Caesar was more successful than Pope Gregory at convincing the world to rapidly adopt the new standard is a result of some pretty interesting

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Mark Calabretta
On Mon 2006/06/05 16:38:08 -0400, John Cowan wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL Q: What happened in the Philippines on December 31, 1844? A: Nothing. It never existed. It is fallacious to pretend that the old time scale ceases to exist at the instant that the new one comes into

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread John Cowan
Mark Calabretta scripsit: You will find December 31, 1844 in both timescales. All your points are correct, but it doesn't change the fact that there was no 1845-12-31 in Manila, any more than there was a second labeled 2006-04-02T00:02:30 in New York. -- Evolutionary psychology is the theory

Re: building consensus

2006-06-05 Thread Mark Calabretta
On Mon 2006/06/05 22:04:40 -0400, John Cowan wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL there was no 1845-12-31 in Manila, any more than there was a As magic tricks go I don't find this one very convincing - I can clearly see the rabbits behind your back. Mark Calabretta ATNF

Re: building consensus

2006-06-04 Thread John Cowan
Zefram scripsit: If this means that leap seconds and leap days are analogous, then I suppose so. If it means something else, I don't understand it. That's what I meant. Can you suggest a clearer wording? Leap seconds (after 1972) are closely analogous to leap days. Being ambiguous

Re: building consensus

2006-06-04 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Zefram scripsit: : : If this means that leap secounds and leap days are analogous, then I : suppose so. If it means something else, I don't understand it. : : That's what I meant. Can you suggest a clearer

Re: building consensus

2006-06-02 Thread matsakis . demetrios
some emails around. We intentionally try to be silent in this forum. -Original Message- From: Leap Seconds Issues To: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL Sent: 06/01/2006 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] building consensus In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

Re: building consensus

2006-06-02 Thread Peter Bunclark
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We intentionally try to be silent in this forum. Why? Peter.

building consensus

2006-06-01 Thread Zefram
I've been reading the list archives. Parts of the discussion are rather repetetive. I think the search space could be narrowed quite a bit if the list produced a canonical statement of consensus, listing facts on which there is no dispute. This would serve much the same purpose as a FAQ, as

Re: building consensus

2006-06-01 Thread Tom Van Baak
UT1 et al are not really measures of time, but of angle (of Terran rotation). To some degree yes, but don't they also include minor corrections (polar motion, longitude, etc.) and so at one level they already depart from raw angle measurement and instead are trying to act like clocks? /tvb

Re: building consensus

2006-06-01 Thread Steve Allen
On Thu 2006-06-01T08:09:22 -0400, John Cowan hath writ: Some do, some don't, some couldn't care less. It deserves to be noted that last year at the GA in India URSI Commission J decided that it couldn't care, and discontinued its working group on the leap second.

Re: building consensus

2006-06-01 Thread Steve Allen
On Thu 2006-06-01T06:25:39 -0700, Tom Van Baak hath writ: UT1 et al are not really measures of time, but of angle (of Terran rotation). To some degree yes, but don't they also include minor corrections (polar motion, longitude, etc.) and so at one level they already depart from raw angle

Re: building consensus

2006-06-01 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Actually, this list is not a discussion per se. If we simplify the : positions - just for the sake of argument here - to leap second yes : and leap second no, the reality is that the folks pushing the leap : second

Re: building consensus

2006-06-01 Thread John Cowan
M. Warner Losh scripsit: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Actually, this list is not a discussion per se. If we simplify the : positions - just for the sake of argument here - to leap second yes : and leap second no, the reality is that the

Re: building consensus

2006-06-01 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : M. Warner Losh scripsit: : : In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : Actually, this list is not a discussion per se. If we simplify the : : positions - just for the

Re: building consensus

2006-06-01 Thread Rob Seaman
Warner Losh objects:There are several doughty people here who happen to have that opinion, but they abide with us mortals outside the time lords' hushed inner sanctum.I have spent much time explaining why leap seconds cause real problems in real applications, only to be insulted like this.Sincere

Re: building consensus

2006-06-01 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Warner Losh objects: : : There are several doughty people here who happen to have that : opinion, but they abide with us mortals outside the time lords' : hushed inner sanctum. : : I have spent much time