[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1

[Ian Batten]

On 2 Sep 2010, at 20:45, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> Do you have references to case law that confirms this interpretation?

> Citing a literal reading of the current law doesn't prove that the

> text is the actual law, as interpreted by courts.  There are many

> instances in this country where the literal meaning of the law was

> interpreted by courts to be more liberal or restricted than the law as

> written.


Well, it was considered clear enough that primary legislation was  
proposed to rectify it: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo970611/text/70611-10.htm 
, and the debate referenced TF460 to state that GMT is UT, not UTC.   
The debate also outlines leap seconds.  But the debate presumes that | 
DUT1| < 0.9s.  The debate's worth reading in full to see why the UK  
House of Lords can be a very sensible body.


>  Not in the UK, see above.

>

> The above lacks case law confirmation.  Sure, it is what the law says,

> but that isn't that what it really means.  Seriously, when the judge

> has to choose between a time that people can obtain, and a theoretical

> one that most people don't have access to,


The MSF signal carries UTC(NPL) as the main timecode and DUT1 is  
provided continuously.  So any device that reads MSF can access DUT1.   
Building a radio clock that displays UT1, or at least one vaguely  
credible realisation of it, is therefore only a software difference to  
building one that displays UTC(NPL).


> Nobody was propagating

> anything except UTC...


But MSF _is_ propagating DUT1.   So UT1 is available wherever MSF's  
writ runs.

ian