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
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
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
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
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.
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]
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
