[LEAPSECS] the big artillery
stenn at ntp.org
Thu Oct 30 19:01:55 EDT 2014
"Poul-Henning Kamp" writes:
> In message <20141030143121.GA20281 at ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
> >I wonder if the ITU-R process can go to its completion without
> >introducing any document which points out that to omit leap seconds
> >from a time scale called UTC is to redefine the word "day".
> You mean the same way leapseconds redefine "minute" by making
> them have the counter intuitive numbers of seconds ?
I don't see this as the same thing. If this argument is valid then
"leap years" are also problematic.
I'm still thinking the answer is "leave existing 'names' alone - if you
want TAI use TAI. If you want UTC, use UTC. If you want something new,
call it something new."
If people are using a defined name for a defined purpose and it works
for them, leave it alone. If people are using a defined name for a
defined purpose and it does not work for them, this group needs to come
up with a new name for the thing they think will solve their problems.
Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!
More information about the LEAPSECS