Re: [LEAPSECS] The real problem with leap seconds

From: M. Warner Losh <imp_at_BSDIMP.COM>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 11:44:04 -0700 (MST)

In message: <>
            "Poul-Henning Kamp" <> writes:
: In message <>, Ed Davies writes:
: >Wow, things have got really stirred up around here. Lots of interesting
: >points but I'll just concentrate on one...
: >
: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
: >> Well, the BIPM doesn't really want anybody to use TAI, their director
: >> said as much last year, and I can see where he is coming from on that
: >> one.
: >
: >Since the usual response of the pro-leap second lobby to people
: >who want a uniform timescale is "use TAI" this is significant.
: >Do you have any information or references on why the BIPM director
: >said this?
: As I understood it, it was mainly that TAI is a post-factum "postal"
: timescale.

How is it that UTC can be realized in realtime, but TAI isn't. I
thought the difference between the two was an integral number of
seconds, by definition. Is that understanding flawed?

Received on Sun Jan 08 2006 - 10:46:44 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:55 PDT