[LEAPSECS] The relation between calendars and leap seconds.

[Rob Seaman]

Recall that the U.S. has just been through a two year ordeal of an  
election in which the technique you just demonstrated of setting up a  
strawman opponent, just to knock it down, has been a daily  
occurrence.  I've never asserted any position even vaguely similar to  
what you say.

Meanwhile, the astronomers in this conversation have repeatedly  
demonstrated the willingness to consider new options, cf. the  
possibility of extending/stabilizing leap second scheduling, or of  
implementing TI via zoneinfo.  In general, we're not supporters of  
leap seconds so much as of mean solar time.

Meanwhile, the cabal pressing the eradication of leap seconds has  
chosen to not participate in this mailing list for nine years running,  
leaving the support of this option on the list to folks who are  
certainly not privy to the cabal's inner machinations.

But you're right - I see the light!  I now acknowledge that it is more  
important to kowtow to international standards - standards that you  
loudly blare are badly conceived and written - than to acknowledge  
minor facts of physical reality such as that Earth has a moon.

I reject your assertion out of hand that proper system engineering  
would cost more than wasting nine years (and counting) on a unilateral  
pursuit of the fantasy position that solar time is a disposable  
commodity.  It is very telling that every time I mention best practice  
system engineering, the response is more panic stricken than when I  
wax poetic on astronomical issues.

Rob Seaman
NOAO
--

On Nov 11, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:


> In message <1036CB00-CB83-4F7F-B2CB-C1CF78DB6CEA at noao.edu>, Rob  

> Seaman writes:

>

>

>> Continue compiling a coherent, complete and self-consistent set of

>> requirements and we can get around to testing the various options.

>

>

> The most important requirement is obviously that the proposed

> change, can possibly be made to happen.

>

> Using the most lenient standard of review we can, we assume that a

> "scientifically perfect" solution is found.

>

> By "scienfically perfect" we obviously do not assume that "we will

> stabilize the Earths rotation", but a solution that works inside

> the bounds of our geophysical knowledge and models of the physical

> reality.

>

> Likewise, the solution is not a technological magicians trick,

> such as "perfect atomic clocks surgically connected to our brains

> right after birth" or "all devices must be on the internet" etc.

>

> In other words, we assume a solution that, through one or more time

> scales, caters to the various needs of humanity, along with such

> rules and observational frameworks that will be required for the

> conversion between these time scales.

>

> We totally disregard small details such as naming, chosen tolerances,

> and thresholds, assuming that the best possible choices have been

> in all such matters.

>

>

> Under this hypothetical scenario, please flesh out this sequence

> of events:

>

>    A.  Rob Seaman announces the scientifically perfect NewTime to

>        the world.

>

>    [ Please fill in what happens here ]

>

>    H.  Scientists, all over, generally applaud this as sensible.

> 	(With the usual small, but loud, fraction of emeriti who

> 	grumble on general principles of age, and are revered but

> 	not necessarily listened to, for the very same reason.)

>

>    [ Please fill in what happens here ]

>

>    N.  NewTime becomes the legal basis of civil timekeeping in all

> 	of USA & EU.

> 	[please insert realistic year this could happen]

>

>    [ Please fill in what happens here ]

>

>    Z.  NewTime is implemented on 99% of all USA & EU based IT

>        systems which react according to what time it is.

> 	[please insert realistic year this could happen]

>

>

> Having done that, please address the probability that the entire

> plan will be derailed by:

>

>    ?.  Computer consultants estimate the cost of implementation

> 	of NewTime in legacy systems to $BIGNUM, and offer the

> 	alternative of just dropping leapseconds from UTC as a

> 	virtually no-cost change.

>

> This event which can be assumed to happen right after A and

> certainly long before N.

>

>

> Poul-Henning

>

> -- 

> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20

> phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956

> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe

> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by  

> incompetence.

> _______________________________________________

> LEAPSECS mailing list

> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs