[LEAPSECS] Comments on predictions for this century

Steve Allen 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
inserting them.

Now there are going to be hardly any leap seconds, so it's okay to stop
inserting them.

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 mailing list