[LEAPSECS] alternative to smearing

[Michael Rothwell]

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:18 PM, John Sauter <
John_Sauter at systemeyescomputerstore.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 13:28 -0500, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > This was probably covered elsewhere, and I apologize if I missed it,
> > but I have a question:
> > Why are you in such favor of leap seconds?
> >
> > --
> > Michael Rothwell
> > michael at rothwell.us
> > (828) 649-ROTH
>
> I regard leap seconds as a reasonable compromise between the needs of
> civil time and of science.  Civil time needs a clock that tracks the
> days and the seasons.  Science requires a clock that measures time in
> precise intervals.  UTC provides both, using leap seconds to keep
> atomic time synchronized with the rotation of the Earth.
>
> Some people who are inconvenienced by leap seconds are pushing for
> their removal.  The effect of removing leap seconds will be to burden
> future users of civil time, who will see their clock no longer tracking
> the rotation of the Earth, and have to do something about it.  I feel
> it is unethical to burden a future generation for our convenience,
> since that future generation has no voice in today's decisions.
>
> The inconveniences of leap seconds can be overcome by fixing the
> software that doesn't handle them correctly.  Doing that is a big job,
> bigger than fixing the software that didn't handle the year 2000
> correctly.  We don't need to fix all the software today, we can chip
> away at it, and encourage newly written software to handle time
> correctly.
>


I think you are hopelessly naive. :)

How many years (or centuries) would it take for the lack of leap seconds to
become a problem?



>     John Sauter (John_Sauter at systemeyescomputerstore.com)
>
> --
> PGP fingerprint E24A D25B E5FE 4914 A603  49EC 7030 3EA1 9A0B 511E
>



-- 
Michael Rothwell
michael at rothwell.us
(828) 649-ROTH
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20170103/fda22359/attachment.html>