[LEAPSECS] Saint Crispin's Day

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <09B6E6AF-6426-4068-A4A8-F4ADE644A571 at noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:

>On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>



>No.  Diurnal rhythms are more pronounced than ever in human systems

>and processes.  Allowing these to drift is a poor engineering choice.


Yes, indeed.  It has been nothing but trouble for us that the usual
human circadian rythm is a couple of hours longer than 24 hours the
planet currently cares to rotate in.

I am sure that a second every other year makes all the difference in
this context.


>> The suns position in the sky has nothing to do with this, that is

>> in the hands of the local(-ish) politicians who legislate your

>> timezone.

>

>I'm skeptical that leaving much if any responsibility in the hands

>of local politicians results in a net good to humanity :-)


Well, that remains to be seen, it is however, how things are legally
arranged around here, and so far it seems to be the least bad of the
possible alternatives.


>By all means, however, assemble materials related to your notion

>that timezones can provide an acceptable substitute.


They seem to have done a damn good job for 120 years now, including
quite a few changes to them, caused by such diverse events as
marriages(!), wars, unions, more wars, and even tourism.

In fact, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that they would
not be more than able to cope with the problem, particularly Chinas
wanton diregard for solar position in the heavens seems to indicate
this.


>> PS: You still have not answered my question:  Why did you use UTC

>> when you knew it was the wrong timescale for your astronomical

>> applications ?

>

>I've answered several times.  Your premise is wrong.  Astronomers

>often use universal time.  UTC is currently an acceptable approximation

>to universal time 


But you are still not answering my question:

How could it ever be considered good design to embed a politically
controled timescale, subject to lots of valid scientific criticism,
into the design of astronomical equipment ?

Clearly, that is negligent design, isn't it ?

-- 
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.