Hi Marion, In my earlier posting I was making reference to a document that I could not access when making my posting as I was pressed for time. I have now found the document. It is at http://www.bipm.org/en/scientific/tai/future_utc.html. I have not followed up what happened as a result of that letter.
Regards Martin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of m. f. moon Sent: 09 July 2008 21:19 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:41370] Re: Journalism & AP Guidelines Martin, the Wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time provide a fairly complete description of current time standards. GMT does not play a role in these matters. UT1 is perhaps the closest to GMT in today's standards. GPS equipment does not need nor use UTC directly as GPS time is monotonic without the need for leap seconds. UTC can be derived from GPS transmissions and is used by many organizations who need UTC such as banks. marion moon ------ Original Message ------ Received: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:37:14 PM PDT From: "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:41368] Re: Journalism & AP Guidelines GMT and UTC are kept in approximate synchronization by the addition of leap seconds into UTC whenever the difference between the two drifts by more than one second. I do however recall that last year there was an attempt to allow UTC to drift by up to one hour from GMT before inserting a leap-hour. The rationale was that inserting leap-seconds imposed an increasing burden on manufacturers of GPS equipment, so this was an effort to kick the problem into the long grass for four of five hundred years. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Frysinger Sent: 09 July 2008 20:16 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:41366] Re: Journalism & AP Guidelines On UTC, UT0, UT1, and so forth, see http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/systime.html GMT was the time kept astronomically, hence the "Mean" adjective. It closely resembles UT1 at Greenwich. TAI is the time kept by atomic clock. Jim m. f. moon wrote: > Brian, as far as I know, there is no adjustment for UTC to GMT. I don't think > GMT is used for any thing today. Most or all time keeping laws refer to UTC. > UTC is a symbol, just as in SI usage, and is the same world-wide. It is best > to keep with UTC even though GMT is commonly used -- I saw it recently on a > new watch. The basic standard I think is tied to the prime meridian which is > no longer the famous line at Greenwich as the prime meridian is now about one > meter east of the original line. The whole issue of "standard" time is very > messy and is best reviewed at the International Telecommunication Union site > or perhaps using Google. > > Marion > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:42:43 AM PDT > From: Brian J White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],"U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [USMA:41355] Re: Journalism & AP Guidelines > > Yes, but while being technically different, they are both the same > time for general purposes. And isn't UTC micro-adjusted to match GMT? > > At 09:32 2008-07-09, m. f. moon wrote: >> Stan, there was an article in a recent LA Times about time and GMT -- no >> reference to UTC. I wrote the writer a brief note about UTC and the fact it > is >> universally used and that GMT was to be deprecated. I explained the origin > and >> why UTC is used. I said that he missed a great opportunity to educate the >> public about UTC. He gave me the courtesy of no response. Not directly > related >> to SI but close, I think. >> >> Marion Moon >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> Received: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:22:59 AM PDT >> From: "STANLEY DOORE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >> Subject: [USMA:41352] Re: Journalism & AP Guidelines >> >> Nice going Victor. >> It shows how much control the media have over what the public reads, > sees >> and hears. >> It's not surprising. My experience has shown that newspaper editors > and >> writers are opposed to the metric system regardless of its ease of use, its >> use in science and technology, and its use internationally. >> Keep up the good work! >> Stan Doore >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Victor Jockin >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:24 AM >> Subject: [USMA:41351] Re: Journalism & AP Guidelines >> >> >> With respect to journalistic style guidelines, I e-mailed Kenneth Chang > of >> the New York Time regarding an article he wrote covering NASA's current >> Mercury probe mission. A very nice piece, but full of references to miles, >> even though an accompanying NASA photo showed notations in kilometers. I > was >> pleased to get a prompt reply, which made clear that Ken, perhaps not >> surprisingly for a science writer, is as much an advocate of the metric > system >> as any of us. But his employer sets style guidelines on this issue that are >> similar to AP's, portions of which Ken quotes in his response below. >> >> To reiterate, it seems to me that we should start building a list of >> signatories in science, education, journalism, etc., to protest guidelines > in >> journalistic style manuals mandating the use of traditional US measurement >> units. Perhaps, eventually, Mr. Chang could be a weighty addition to that >> list. >> >> >> >> >> From: Victor Jockin >> To: Kenneth Chang >> Date: July 7, 2008 >> Thanks for your excellent article about NASA's mission to Mercury. >> Outstanding science reporting is one reason I'm loyal to the Times. >> >> Consistent with practice across nearly all fields of science, NASA has >> principally used metric units of measure for many years. I believe the last >> vestiges of traditional units are being phased out now, with the upcoming >> retirement of the shuttle. The excellent service you and other Times science >> reporters provide in educating the public would be enhanced if you would >> publish measures in the units that scientists actually used to report them, >> perhaps with parenthetical translations. We all learned metric units in > grade >> school, and for readers of the Times science pages, even parenthetical >> translations into traditional units are scarcely necessary. >> >> Keep up the great science reporting, but help America keep moving >> forward on >> metric usage, as NASA is doing, and pass on NASA's measurements straight-up. >> >> From: Kenneth Chang >> To: Victor Jockin >> Date: July 8, 2008 >> Thank you very much for the compliments. I personally would love it if > the >> U.S. went metric -- I've generated a number of corrections by botching the >> conversion from metric to English units (all too easy to do, since no one >> thinks in millionths of an inch or minus-500 Fahrenheit, and then it's too >> late before you realize minus-500 is impossible). >> >> The New York Times stylebook says, "Ordinarily convert >> measurements from the >> metric system to the American one. Delete the original measure unless it is >> truly useful." Putting both values in gets clumsy and distracting (in the > same >> way that the speed limit signs in mph and km/hr were never useful or >> edifying). >> >> On the Web, we could insert pop-up links so that the reader could move > the >> mouse over a quantity and the metric value would pop up. I haven't been able >> to convince anyone to implement this idea... >> >> Thanks for your email. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: VictorJockin >> To: U.S. Metric Association >> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 3:22 AM >> Subject: [USMA:41344] Journalism & AP Guidelines >> >> >> I've been thinking about the issue of the AP style guidelines >> that came up >> a couple of weeks back, and it seems to me that we need to put our heads >> together and decide what our best shot is at doing something about this. >> Requiring traditional units in news stories, typically to the exclusion of >> metric units, is obviously a huge obstacle to general use of metric. But > it's >> a barrier that doesn't require legislative action to fix, something we lack >> the influence and/or money to achieve. It wouldn't be easy to change AP's >> mind, of course, but it would be easier than changing Congress's mind, and >> would represent an important and concrete step forward. >> >> First, we could use our existing connections to assemble the largest >> coalition of scientists, educators, journalists, etc., that we can. Through >> networking, the group of signatories could grow quite large. We may need to >> circulate a draft for some time, perhaps a year or more, and we should focus >> on recruiting as many journalists and journalism professors as possible. >> Then, we need to jointly and formally approach AP with our statement, and > the >> angle we should take with them, it seems to me, is objectivity. > Journalistic >> style guidelines should not require reporters to take sides on social > issues, >> or to advocate for particular political outcomes. Traditional units, we >> should point out, are not the law of the land, but a social preference. And >> in fact, it was the intent of Congress to initiate and encourage a voluntary >> transition away from that historical social preference and toward the metric >> system. Should this transition take place or not? That's a social and >> political question that a journalist should not be required, as a matter of >> style, to take sides on. And yet, that is just what AP is doing. It would > be >> as if AP specified that journalists not use the term African American in > place >> of black. Social preferences continually evolve on such issues, and good >> journalists are witnesses, not advocates, during such transitions. >> >> Thoughts? > > > > > > > -- James R. Frysinger 632 Stony Point Mountain Road Doyle, TN 38559-3030 (H) 931.657.3107 (C) 931.212.0267
