Re: [LEAPSECS] what should a time standard encompass?

From: John Cowan <jcowan_at_REUTERSHEALTH.COM>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:27:20 -0500 (EST)

Steve Allen scripsit:

> Or, keep adding leap seconds to UTC, as it is now, and have everyone
> who needs an unsegmented time use TAI. Having two kinds of TAI which
> differ by less than a minute is pointless and will result in ridicule
> from our posterity.

I have no problem with this save a practical one: it will be too hard to
change all the world's time legislation to point to TAI. So keep the
name of UTC for Universal Time (Civil), and let astronomers go their own way.

> Why is the status quo combined with aggressive time-user education
> (and possibly new time distribution protocols) not the best solution
> to the whatever is the perceived problem?

Because as a practical matter time-distribution protocols will never reach
everybody, when you consider all the civil-time clocks in the world.
Yet such clocks will be set, as a practical matter, from civil time. This
leads to a very segmented time indeed.

"No, John.  I want formats that are actually       John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that
address all questions by piling on ridiculous
internal links in forms which are hideously
over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
Received on Mon Jan 27 2003 - 09:27:27 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:54 PDT