Re: A lurker surfaces

2007-01-01 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes: On Sun 2006-12-31T07:59:35 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ: Rob, If you feel uncomfortable with calling leapseconds discontinuities, then we can use the term arrhythmia instead. The point of my allegory about unplanned pregnancies is that all

Re: A lurker surfaces

2007-01-01 Thread Ashley Yakeley
On Dec 30, 2006, at 17:41, Jim Palfreyman wrote: The earlier concept of rubber seconds gives me the creeps and I'm glad I wasn't old enough to know about it then! I rather like the idea, though perhaps not quite the same kind of rubber as was used. I'd like to see an elastic civil second to

Happy New Year!

2007-01-01 Thread Rob Seaman
Rather than reply in detail to the points raised in the latest messages - believe me, you've heard before what I was going to say again - I'd simply like to wish everybody a happy new year. I am grateful to everybody who has ever contributed to this list and consider it a mark of the importance

Re: A lurker surfaces

2007-01-01 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ashley Yakeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Software should serve human needs, not the other : way around. Anyone needing fixed seconds should use TAI. I think this idea would be harder to implement than the current leapseconds. There are many systems

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-01 Thread Ed Davies
Rob Seaman wrote: ... Obviously it would take at least N years to introduce a new reporting requirement of N years in advance (well, N years minus six months). Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but, why? Surely the IERS could announce all the leap seconds in 2007 through 2016 inclusive this week

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-01 Thread Steve Allen
On Mon 2007-01-01T17:42:11 +, Ed Davies hath writ: Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but, why? Surely the IERS could announce all the leap seconds in 2007 through 2016 inclusive this week then those for 2017 just before the end of this year, and so on. We'd have immediate 10 year scheduling.

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-01 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes: McCarthy pretty much answered this question in 2001 as I reiterate here http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/McCarthy.html What exactly is the Y axis on this graph ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-01 Thread Steve Allen
On Mon 2007-01-01T19:29:19 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ: McCarthy pretty much answered this question in 2001 as I reiterate here http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/McCarthy.html What exactly is the Y axis on this graph ? Only McCarthy can say for sure. Maybe someone elsewho was at the

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-01 Thread Magnus Danielson
From: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Introduction of long term scheduling Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 19:29:19 + Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poul-Henning, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes: McCarthy pretty much answered this question in 2001 as I

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-01 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes: One could say that it was never possible for the BIH/IERS to guarantee that its leap second scheduling could meet the 0.7 s and then later 0.9 s specification because they could not be held responsible for things that the earth might do. As such

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-01 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Magnus Danielson wr ites: From: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Introduction of long term scheduling Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 19:29:19 + Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poul-Henning, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-01 Thread Ed Davies
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: If you have subtle point, I'd love to hear it. Not even close to a subtle point, I simply cannot figure out what the graph shows... Me too. Is this an analysis or a simulation? What are the assumptions? What predicted intervals does he mean? The bullet points

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-01 Thread Ed Davies
Steve Allen wrote: On Mon 2007-01-01T17:42:11 +, Ed Davies hath writ: Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but, why? Surely the IERS could announce all the leap seconds in 2007 through 2016 inclusive this week then those for 2017 just before the end of this year, and so on. We'd have immediate 10

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-01 Thread Steve Allen
On Mon 2007-01-01T21:19:04 +, Ed Davies hath writ: Why does the One sec at predicted intervals line suddenly diverge in the early 2500's when the other lines seem to just be expanding in a sensible way? Upon looking closer I see a 200 year periodicity in the plot. I begin to suspect that

Re: A lurker surfaces

2007-01-01 Thread Michael Sokolov
Ashley Yakeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to see an elastic civil second to which SI nanoseconds are added or removed. Ditto! I have always been in favor of rubber seconds, and specifically civil second. I believe that the *CIVIL* second should have its own definition completely and

Re: A lurker surfaces

2007-01-01 Thread John Cowan
Michael Sokolov scripsit: The people who complain about leap seconds screwing up their interval time computations are usually told to use TAI. They retort that they need interval time *between civil timestamps*. To me that seems like what they are really measuring as interval time is not

Re: A lurker surfaces

2007-01-01 Thread Ashley Yakeley
On Jan 1, 2007, at 17:03, John Cowan wrote: Michael Sokolov scripsit: The people who complain about leap seconds screwing up their interval time computations are usually told to use TAI. They retort that they need interval time *between civil timestamps*. To me that seems like what they are

Re: A lurker surfaces

2007-01-01 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Sokolov) writes: : The people who complain about leap seconds screwing up their interval : time computations are usually told to use TAI. They retort that they : need interval time *between civil timestamps*. Actaully, interval

Re: A lurker surfaces

2007-01-01 Thread Magnus Danielson
From: Michael Sokolov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] A lurker surfaces Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 22:22:23 GMT Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ashley Yakeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to see an elastic civil second to which SI nanoseconds are added or removed. Ditto! I have

Re: A lurker surfaces

2007-01-01 Thread John Cowan
Ashley Yakeley scripsit: Rubber seconds are appropriate because we have rubber days. People who need absolute time have their own timescale based on some absolute unit (the SI second), but to everyone else, the second is a fraction of the day. Well, okay. Does the rubberiness go down all

Re: A lurker surfaces

2007-01-01 Thread Steve Allen
On Tue 2007-01-02T01:48:26 -0500, John Cowan hath writ: Well, okay. Does the rubberiness go down all the way? Is a civil nanosecond one-billionth of a civil second, then? If so, how do we build clocks that measure these intervals? Let's not. Let's continue the valid and agreeable notion of