[LEAPSECS] Synchronization requirement?

[Rob Seaman]

My point was that some applications have requirements more tied to  
relative timekeeping, than to absolute timekeeping.  Universal  
usability (a rather loftier goal than I think anybody is actually  
pursuing) wouldn't imply that such a universally "usable" timescale is  
optimum for all purposes.  Conversely, there are many examples of  
using task defined timescale for some specific purpose - this says  
nothing about the design goals for a generally useful civil timescale.

In any event, the goal of system engineering is not to identify the  
optimum solution, but rather, a satisfactory solution.

Rob
--

On Nov 13, 2008, at 2:17 AM, Nero Imhard wrote:


>> But why do we assume that these

>> several purposes need to be tied together?

>

> Because if we don't, we effectively require that each application

> (purpose) explicitly defines (and - $deity forbid - possibly also

> provides) a time scale. The whole idea behind a widely accepted

> "universal" time is its universal usability.

>

> N

> _______________________________________________

> LEAPSECS mailing list

> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com

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