[LEAPSECS] WP7A status and Re: clinical evidence about time and sun

[John Hein]

Rob Seaman wrote at 14:50 -0700 on Dec 18, 2008:
 > So, the assertion is that an imaginary requirement that technology  
 > worldwide must remain synchronized to the fractional second level at  
 > all times in all places forever and ever - that this takes precedence  
 > over the actual (if heretofore largely unstated) requirement that  
 > historians and long term planners (and yes, some folks do think  
 > thousands of years into the past and the future) need a coherent  
 > system for tracking clock relationships between countries and centuries?

I'm not sure if you were responding to my post or not.  If so, then
no, that was not my assertion - I'm not sure how you inferred that
from my response.  I was simply stating that it's based on a shaky
foundation to argue against an alternative to leap seconds by stating
that planning for the future will be hard (for the alternative).


 > Solutions for "applications" can and should rely on properly designed  
 > systems

Indeed.  And relying on a system whereby you receive six months notice
is one of the problems with the current system of leap seconds.

I was trying specifically limit the scope of my previous comment to
this narrow issue, so I'll not be dragged into a dialog or rebuttal of
the remaining discussion, opinion & hyperbole of your reply at this
time, other than to agree on the elementary premise that there are
different timescales involved.