[time-nuts] Why not TAI?
Poul-Henning Kamp
phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Wed Aug 10 10:14:19 UTC 2011
In message <4E425909.7050309 at xtra.co.nz>, Bruce Griffiths writes:
>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.
This argument is pretty vacuous:
UTC is also a paper clock, and the real time approximations of it,
UTC(NPL), UTC(NIST) etc, are exactly as good or bad as their TAI
parallels.
In fact, they are by *definition* exactly as good or bad, because
UTC is defined as an integral number of seconds offset from TAI.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
More information about the Time-nuts_lists.febo.com
mailing list