Markus Kuhn said:
>> A resolution was proposed to redefine UTC by replacing leap seconds by leap
>> hours, effective at a specific date which I believe was something like 2020.
[...]
> If this proposal gets accepted, then someone will have to shoulder the
> burden and take responsibility for a gigantic disruption in the
> global^Wsolar IT infrastructure sometimes around 2600. I believe, the
> worry about Y2K was nothing in comparison to the troubles caused by a
> UTC leap hour. We certainly couldn't insert a leap hour into UTC today.
>
> In my eyes, a UTC leap hour is an unrealistic phantasy.
[...]
I may be wrong here, but I thought the "leap hour" idea did *not* insert a
discontinuity into UTC. Rather, in 2600 (or whenever it is), all civil
administrations would move their <local>-UTC offset forward by one hour,
in many cases by failing to implement the summer-to-winter step back.
Thus in the UK and the US eastern seaboard, the civil time would go:
UK US east
Summer 2599: UTC + 0100 UTC - 0400
Winter 2599/2600: UTC + 0000 UTC - 0500
Summer 2600: UTC + 0100 UTC - 0400
Winter 2600/2601: UTC + 0100 UTC - 0400
Summer 2601: UTC + 0200 UTC - 0300
Winter 2601/2602: UTC + 0200 UTC - 0400
That *is* practical to implement, though coordination might be harder. On
the other hand, adminstrative areas that are near the edge of a zone now
could move earlier if they wanted. The world is used to time zones, after
all.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive_at_demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive_at_davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc | |
Received on Thu Jan 20 2005 - 04:34:22 PST