Re: The real problem with leap seconds

2006-01-07 Thread Michael Sokolov
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

Re: The real problem with leap seconds

2006-01-07 Thread Michael Sokolov
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

Re: The real problem with leap seconds

2006-01-07 Thread Michael Sokolov
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

Re: The real problem with leap seconds

2006-01-07 Thread Michael Sokolov
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

Re: The real problem with leap seconds

2006-01-07 Thread Michael Sokolov
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

Re: the tail wags the dog

2006-01-22 Thread Michael Sokolov
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

Re: Risks of change to UTC

2006-01-22 Thread Michael Sokolov
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

Re: independence day

2006-07-05 Thread Michael Sokolov
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

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