[LEAPSECS] Schedule for success

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20081231.102326.195751037.imp at bsdimp.com>
            "M. Warner Losh" <imp at bsdimp.com> writes:

: In message: <495B7242.4030006 at cox.net>

:             Greg Hennessy <greg.hennessy at cox.net> writes:

: : 

: : 

: : M. Warner Losh wrote:

: : > In message: <495AFFEA.7020808 at cox.net>

: : >             Greg Hennessy <greg.hennessy at cox.net> writes:

: : > :  > It also agrees with the

: : > :  > USNO web pages, as well as the BIPM web pages.  Would you like the

: : > :  > URLs?

: : > : 

: : > : Since I don't consider them relavent, no thank you.

: : > 

: : > The problem is that GMT means several different things.  It is an

: : > ambiguous term.

: : 

: : Thank you, you have finally acknowledged the point I making.

: : 

: : And you were able to do it without the personal insult you sent

: : to my private email account.


Yea, I'd like to apologize for that...  that was bad on my part...


: : Given that GMT can mean more than one timescale, is a person

: : or group necessarily wrong when using the term?

: 

: Yes.  They are wrong.  They are misusing a term, although it is a

: common mistake.  The proper term for UTC is UTC.  While others may

: call it by other names, that shows an ignorance on their part of the

: underlying details.  This lack of precision is but one example of why

: it is hard to get this stuff right.  To get things right, you have to

: use the right terms, not fuzzy, the public thinks it is right terms.


I guess the argument here boils down to this.  Greg is saying that
there exists a definition of GMT such that NASA is right.  In such a
case, you can point to the definition and be done with it.

I'm saying that there exists too many definitions of GMT so NASA is
wrong to use the term.  There's an ambiguity in the reader's mind that
makes it a bad choice and can create confusion...

Warner