Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: list
Status: RO
On Sat 2006-01-07T07:39:58 +, Michael Sokolov hath writ:
http://ivan.Harhan.ORG/~msokolov/articles/leapsecs.txt
If I read it right you have reinvented Markus Kuhn's UTS as seen in
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/uts.txt
http
Please ignore this post. It got away because I was connected to my UNIX
host from my girlfriend's PC over her cable Internet connection which is
probably the crappiest in the world as I was composing a reply to some
posts on this list, and as it crapped out on me, the mail process on the
UNIX
Steve Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I read it right you have reinvented Markus Kuhn's UTS [...]
Close to it, but...
Ed Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] followed up:
Also, Markus wasn't proposing UTS as a civil timescale but just
for use within computer systems, etc.
Therein lies the key
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this rather humorous document you have managed to say that POSIX
screwed up badly. We already knew that :-)
What does this have to do with POSIX? The word POSIX does not appear in
my article.
MS
Ed Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UTC is expressible as a real number in just the same way that
Gregorian dates (with months with different lengths and leap
days) can be with the Julian calendar.
There's no difference in principle between converting from a
TAI time in seconds since some
Steve Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The CGPM recommendation on the timescale everyone should use says UTC.
UTC(insert your national time service here) is available in real time.
TAI is the mathematical (really the political or diplomatic) entity
upon which UTC is ostensibly based, but the
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once we have accomplished the former [changing the basis of civil time],
I don't give a hoot about the latter [hobbling UTC].
Keep UTC if you want.
Then what are you doing here? Why don't you go to your elected
representatives in whatever country you call
Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is, however, that nothing - absolutely nothing -
would then protect legal timekeeping in the U.S. or elsewhere from
the whims of future timekeepers at the ITU.
Say we go with leap hours. UTC isn't therefore less malleable than
currently - but
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