[LEAPSECS] An example

[Tony Finch]

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010, Nero Imhard wrote:

> Op 02-11-10 23:56, Poul-Henning Kamp schreef:

>

> > There very much is: With each passing day, the probability that the next

> > leap second will kill somebody because of sloppy engineering increases

> > by a possibly non-trivial amount.

>

> Then why aren't you demanding proper engineering instead? Giving in to

> sloppy engineering won't be any improvement, now would it? In the long run

> it will be even more dangerous.


Proper engineering has to take human factors into account. When you are
working at the rarefied level of international starndards, you have to be
realistic about what can be implemented reliably and interoperably - the
human factors of engineering practice. When you are revising a standard
you have to take into account the experience that has been gained from
existing implementation and deployment efforts. If you don't, the
specification will diverge from what it purports to describe.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7,
DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR
ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.