[LEAPSECS] Trying a different angle
seaman at noao.edu
Thu Feb 14 08:21:15 EST 2008
Um - might I just point out that GPS already exists and it is possible
that more people know the brand name "GPS" than "UTC"?
Also, I wouldn't have thought it possible, but your description of the
parliamentary process almost makes the bicameral legislative model
seem preferable :-)
The obvious choice to circumvent both public and governmental inertia
is GPS. Label it "TI" in prudently drafted proposal documents and
create a commissioning schedule that brings the zoneinfo changes in
over several decades. Voila! Bicameral civil time layered on
unsegmented GPS, but called TI per Torino and that doesn't eviscerate
Don't underestimate the power of a brand name.
On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:14 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <C96B533D-0B6E-4FEB-BD41-9C7BE493EDDD at noao.edu>, Rob
> Seaman writes:
>> Q: What do GPS and TI (as described in Torino and by Steve) have in
>> A: They are both timescales without leap seconds.
>> Q: And?
>> A: ...and no astronomers are complaining about them.
>> Q: Why not?
> A: because they would not solve the problem the computer people face.
> GPS and TI would both have to go through several hundreds of
> before computers could avoid dealing with leap-seconds.
> During the timeperiod where this takes place, neighboring countries
> would face differences in legal time of up to 30 seconds, if previous
> changes to time and calendar is any guide. One of the worst cases
> is the Danish parliament which has still not gotten around to adobt
> UTC, despite the fact that we actually use it.
> To achive the desired effect, it has to be UTC.
> 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
> LEAPSECS mailing list
> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com
More information about the LEAPSECS