[Javascript] OT: leap seconds (was: Is integer?)

[tedd]

John:

Boy, and I thought my clients were strict. :-)

tedd


>But Tedd, my program wil crash if I don't get that Leap Second down pat
><wink /> or maybe not...
>
>John Warner
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: javascript-bounces at LaTech.edu
>> [mailto:javascript-bounces at LaTech.edu] On Behalf Of tedd
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:00 PM
>> To: [JavaScript List]
>> Subject: Re: [Javascript] OT: leap seconds (was: Is integer?)
>>
>>
>> At 10:19 AM -0400 5/31/06, Steve Clay wrote:
>> >Tuesday, May 30, 2006, 7:24:19 PM, tedd wrote:
>> >> No, there is a lot of computation involved.
>> >
>> >David was just suggesting that, unlike leap years, you can't predict
>> >leap seconds with an algorithm alone; you need /observed data/.
>>
>>
>> I realize that, but there's more to it.
>>
>> I said:
>>
>> "... you don't even want to know the computations for that."
>>
>> And he replied
>>
>> "No computations in the world can help you with that...."
>>
>> I think he misspoke himself and I was simply stating that a
>> computation is different than an algorithm.
>>
>>
>> >We don't have to worry about leap seconds because Unix time isn't
>> >really a count of seconds, but rather a mapping of the first 86400
>> >seconds of each UTC day. The mapping is discontinuous on
>> longer/shorter
>> >days (eg. added leap seconds have no Unix time equivalent), but it
>> >guarantees that adding/subtracting 86400 always gives you
>> the same time
>> >the next/previous day (if that time exists).
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_epoch#Encoding_time_as_a_number
>> >
>> >Steve
>>
>> Well.. throw a couple of million years into it and see if
>> your UTC day still works -- it won't.
>>
>> One point here is that static "time" is based upon some
>> notion that we have conjured up -- it doesn't exist in the
>> real world and it's just like any other of our physical
>> measurements which are based upon "standards" that are only
>> standardized within our limits of observation.
>>
>> Certainly an algorithm could be created to determine when to
>> add a leap second, but our limits of observations error in
>> greater magnitude than what we find acceptable for the algorithm.
>>
>> I don't want to get into a discussion about this for two
>> reasons: 1) It's off-topic for this list; 2) It really
>> doesn't matter anyway.
>>
>> tedd
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Javascript mailing list
>Javascript at LaTech.edu
>https://lists.LaTech.edu/mailman/listinfo/javascript


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sperling.com  http://ancientstones.com  http://earthstones.com