Re: Is 'right' wrong?

On Jan 23, 2005, at 7.37, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> [email protected] (Paul Jarc) writes:
[...]
>> That's not a meaningful comparison.  You can compare simultaneous
>> time() values from two machines, or two simultaneous "date" outputs.
>> But a time_t value and the human-readable string are of two different
>> kinds.
>
> I know they are two different kinds.  But I _want_ my human-readable
> string to be the same as my system clock.  I _want_ it to be 22 seconds
> (currently) later than the human-readable values that most people see.
>
> I even want to set my watch to that time.  I like the feeling of being
> on "real time" instead of "fake, missing-leap-second time".  This is
> purely whimsical.

So, this was really a meaningless discussion from the start. :-)
You don't *want* your clock to be in sync with civil time.

The only 'strings' with meaningful representations of TAI instants
would be what Dan is using on <URL:http://cr.yp.to/proto/utctai.html>:

  "For example, here's how UTC and TAI handled the end of June 1997:

   1997-06-30 23:59:59 UTC = 1997-07-01 00:00:29 TAI
   1997-06-30 23:59:60 UTC = 1997-07-01 00:00:30 TAI
   1997-07-01 00:00:00 UTC = 1997-07-01 00:00:31 TAI"

All other strings---that is, all other representations of the atomic
time---depends on UTC and hence depends on leapseconds (or really on
how fast earth is rotating).

I should add 'as far as I know'.

Regards,
Malte