Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 10/08/11 09:16, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
Attila Kinali wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:57:45 +0000
"Poul-Henning Kamp"<p...@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
Everybody but the time-lords have always been told to stay away from
TAI in the strongest possible terms by said time-lords, who again and
told the world to use UTC.
May i ask what the reason was to stay away from TAI?
I mean, it is obvious (for me) that for any application that needs
a steady, continious and monotone clock that TAI is one of the best
alternatives among all those time standards.
Attila Kinali
Strictly TAI, as presently realised, is a paper clock that isn't
actually available in real time.
This is not entierly true. There are a few national laboratories which
has a local representation of TAI, alongside their UTC. It is handy to
say that TAI is a paper clock, but it is a comparable scale.
Cheers,
Magnus
These "local'' versions of TAI -TAI(NPL), TAI(NIST) etc, are also paper
ensemble averages and only a coarse approximation of them is available
in real time.
Bruce
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
