[LEAPSECS] WP7A status and Re: clinical evidence about time and sun

John Hein jhein at timing.com
Thu Dec 18 17:32:39 EST 2008


Rob Seaman wrote at 14:50 -0700 on Dec 18, 2008:
> So, the assertion is that an imaginary requirement that technology
> worldwide must remain synchronized to the fractional second level at
> all times in all places forever and ever - that this takes precedence
> over the actual (if heretofore largely unstated) requirement that
> historians and long term planners (and yes, some folks do think
> thousands of years into the past and the future) need a coherent
> system for tracking clock relationships between countries and centuries?

I'm not sure if you were responding to my post or not. If so, then
no, that was not my assertion - I'm not sure how you inferred that
from my response. I was simply stating that it's based on a shaky
foundation to argue against an alternative to leap seconds by stating
that planning for the future will be hard (for the alternative).


> Solutions for "applications" can and should rely on properly designed
> systems

Indeed. And relying on a system whereby you receive six months notice
is one of the problems with the current system of leap seconds.

I was trying specifically limit the scope of my previous comment to
this narrow issue, so I'll not be dragged into a dialog or rebuttal of
the remaining discussion, opinion & hyperbole of your reply at this
time, other than to agree on the elementary premise that there are
different timescales involved.


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list