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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
I purchased a copy of ISO 8601 and keep in on my laptop as a *.pdf file.
Section 1,
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
