[LEAPSECS] Comments on predictions for this century
sla at ucolick.org
Sun Jan 18 01:42:30 EST 2015
On Sat 2015-01-17T19:30:10 -0800, Dennis Ferguson hath writ:
> But the paper also predicts that between when it was written in 1999
Discussing the numbers and changes to them is missing the point.
First there were going to be too many leap seconds, so we have to stop
Now there are going to be hardly any leap seconds, so it's okay to stop
Perhaps Goldilocks will show up and announces a prediction of the
number of leap seconds that is just right, but as noted in
to ensure that all the technical options have been fully addressed
in further studies related to the issue. It was necessary because
the decision was not only of a technical nature but had some
regulatory and legal consequences.
the ITU-R has already noticed that Goldilocks hasn't given a technical
description of the affected systems which justifies trespassing in the
house of the Three Bears.
It is clear that there are systems doing just fine using time scales
which have no leap seconds, and they started using those time scales
without any help from the ITU-R. I think the ITU-R would better
ratify existing proven practices of systems which are working okay
rather than change things that affect the laws of member nations.
Steve Allen <sla at ucolick.org> WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855
1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015
Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
More information about the LEAPSECS