[LEAPSECS] Possible outcomes ?
phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Wed Aug 14 02:47:52 EDT 2013
In message <6F38763B-7F83-4FA0-B23D-CB1AC33A6950 at noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>On Aug 13, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>> There are only two realistically possible outcomes:
>Interesting that you fail to mention other outcomes such as the
>consensus from the 2003 Torino meeting of calling a leap-less
>timescale something other than UTC. Among other things this would
>leave UTC for backwards compatibility.
I don't expect the worlds 300-odd countries to ammend their laws
just to cater for a bunch of astronomers hurt feelings about the
name of "their" timescale.
>Note also that the proceedings of the 2011 Exton meeting
>(http://www.univelt.com/book=3042), and soon the 2013 Charlottesville
>meeting, were published by the American Astronautical Society, not
>by the astronomy community.
That probably reflects more on where a hospitable organization was
under the influence of the organizers, than the optimal fit of the subject.
>And for another thing, leap seconds can't just "go". The long-term
>quadratic trend that was described in the 1999 McCarthy and Klepczynski
>guarantees that we'll have to deal with the embargoed leap seconds
>at some point.
Well, and leap-seconds can't cope with it either in the long term,
so that argument points the same way either way.
>> or leap second stays until they create
>> enough havoc to be removed anyway (max 2 centuries)
>It is significant that even you are saying we have 200 years to sort this
Which part of "max" didn't you understand ?
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 LEAPSECS