[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 4

Finkleman, Dave dfinkleman at agi.com
Thu Sep 2 17:20:42 EDT 2010

Warner is absolutely correct. Our recent past President said that he
wanted judges to embrace a strict interpretation of the law. That is an
oxymoron. We have judges to .... use their judgement. Almost no law
precisely fits any situation. We often apply bad judgement to mitigate
exercising any judgement. For example, many places in the US have a
"boulevard law" that rests responsibility for an accident on the
individual who hits someone from behind or who just departed a stop
sign. It doesn't matter if the collision was intentionally caused by
the person ahead or the wild man driving so fast that he was not visible
more than a millisecond before you left the stop sign. Easy decision,
no judgement ... no justice.

However, I don't see where judgement enters into the mandate for UTC.
It says UTC. There might be a call on whether it was UTC before the
change or after. There might be a debate over whether DoC had
authorized it, but it is still UTC.

A law does not have to be enforceable in order to have an effect or to
be a law. Speed limits sort of work even though only a small fraction
of the real offenders are apprehended. Everyone is afraid that they
might be, and most drive close to the speed limit even though
enforcement is sporadic. What about "no trespassing?" That's enforced
only by someone noticing that it had happened. Similarly, if two
entities collaborated on a process that required precision time to
better than a second, and something was screwed up, the one who wasn't
using UTC would be legally sanctioned.

Dave Finkleman
Senior Scientist
Center for Space Standards and Innovation
Analytical Graphics, Inc.
7150 Campus Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80920

Phone: 719-510-8282 or 719-321-4780
Fax: 719-573-9079

Discover CSSI data downloads, technical webinars, publications, and
outreach events at www.CenterForSpace.com.

-----Original Message-----
From: leapsecs-bounces at leapsecond.com
[mailto:leapsecs-bounces at leapsecond.com] On Behalf Of
leapsecs-request at leapsecond.com
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 2:12 PM
To: leapsecs at leapsecond.com
Subject: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 4

Send LEAPSECS mailing list submissions to
leapsecs at leapsecond.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
leapsecs-request at leapsecond.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
leapsecs-owner at leapsecond.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of LEAPSECS digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1 (Rob Seaman)
2. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1 (M. Warner Losh)
3. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3 (Finkleman, Dave)
4. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3 (Poul-Henning Kamp)
5. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3 (Rob Seaman)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:56:20 -0700
From: Rob Seaman <seaman at noao.edu>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
To: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <37881E55-711A-4902-A9F8-433CCBC15AB0 at noao.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:


> railroads was what got us timezones in the first place, and to the

right people they were fantastically profitable.

It was the railroads that were profitable. The timezones were an
engineering response forced on the robber barons by real world
constraints. Other such real world constraints were rivers and mountain
ranges. The Mississippi River and the Rockies weren't amenable to being
defined out of existence.

That the Earth is round was a similar physical constraint to the gravity
that held the steam engines on the tracks.


> If you want to keep leapseconds, all you have to do is come up with

the business case. And vice versa.

Precisely. "And vice versa." The ITU proposal should be paired with an
engineering plan that considers the full range of issues. These include
economic issues, but also aspects of physical reality too often
neglected by short term business motives.

For example, GPS represents a rich (in all senses of the word) cluster
of business niches. And yet the proponents of the effort to redefine
UTC appear to deride GPS timekeeping even more than leap seconds.

Rob
E pur si muove



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:45:33 -0600 (MDT)
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp at bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
To: leapsecs at leapsecond.com, igb at batten.eu.org
Message-ID: <20100902.134533.722022410233331505.imp at bsdimp.com>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii

In message: <722F0D89-CBFA-423A-9C9E-6D919DED9C4D at batten.eu.org>
Ian Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes:

: >

: > I'd wager that UTC, whatever its realization, would likely trump any

: > locally written laws.

:

: It'll be interesting in the UK

:

: * There's no doubt that UK legal time is GMT, Interpretation Act 1978,

: * S.9

:

: * There's no doubt that whatever GMT is, it's solar, and there's no

: * doubt that whatever UTC is, it isn't solar and would be even less

: * solar without leap seconds,

:

: * There's no doubt that proposed legislation to change UK legal time

to

: * UTC failed to be passed in 1997, and an extensive history of the

issue

: * got read into Hansard.

:

: You'd have a hell of a job showing UK time was UTC in the face of

: that.


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.

The national labs that are keepers of the official time have been
publishing UTC. I'd t is the de facto standard that everybody is using.
Based on that, I suspect someone will make the case that the official
time is what people can access as the official time, as opposed to
some theoretical time that is extremely difficult to access today.


: > After all, UTC has been a widely accepted

: > approximation of the local laws that's attained the force of law

: > through repetitive use

:

: That's right, but |DUT1|<1 means that for the purposes of integer

: arithmetic it's barely more than a rounding error. There's clear,

: modern legislation to the contrary.


Interesting, but not likely relevant. UTC is a published time
everybody can agree on. The technicalities of the legislation may not
be relevant if nobody follows them.


: > (how many real-time realizations of UT1 are

: > propagated, in comparison to UTC). So underlying technical changes

to

: > UTC may not change that. It would take a long, and complicated,

legal

: > argument to show that UT1 is what should be used

:

: 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, I believe that actual
practice will trump theory. These sort of minor corrections to the
law, as written, happen all the time. It is impossible for someone
today to say, with absolute certainty, what the legal rulings will be
in the future. My options here are just that: my guess at the likely
outcome.


: > (even though nobody

: > knows what it is, day to day).

:

: That's the paradox, isn't it!


Right, but it leads to a legally untenable position. A law that
nobody has the practical means of complying with is unenforceable, and
is likely to be adjusted by court rulings to be an law that people can
comply with.

Even before the US officially switched from mean solar time to utc,
the us law wasn't mean solar time. It was mean solar time as
interpreted by the secretary of commerce, which had for years been
interpreting mean solar time to mean UTC... Nobody was propagating
anything except UTC... The law said mean solar time, true, but
everybody was using and recognizing UTC since that's what NIST was
telling everybody was the official time. I don't think this was ever
legally tested, however.

Warner


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:04:31 -0400
From: "Finkleman, Dave" <dfinkleman at agi.com>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3
To: <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <3B33E89C51D2DE44BE2F0C757C656C8809437936 at mail02.stk.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I believe that no one is advocating UT1 for civil time scales.

I have discovered that UTC is the statutory time scale for the United
States but without qualification. In other words, if UTC changes and is
still called UTC, the new definition would be the statutory requirement.
Every process and system developed for the previous definition would be
illegal. Conversely, it UTC were changed but given a different name,
the statutes would be of no effect. We would either need a new law or
there would be no legally established civil time scale.

The law does state that the change has to be agreed to by the Department
of Commerce and the USNO. Even if the ITU changes UTC, it is still
possible that designated US authorities could choose to remain with the
old UTC.

This is a very complex legal, sociological, and religious matter.
Perhaps a technical matter as well, but the other aspects may be more
important.

Dave Finkleman
Senior Scientist
Center for Space Standards and Innovation
Analytical Graphics, Inc.
7150 Campus Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80920

Phone: 719-510-8282 or 719-321-4780
Fax: 719-573-9079

Discover CSSI data downloads, technical webinars, publications, and
outreach events at www.CenterForSpace.com.

-----Original Message-----
From: leapsecs-bounces at leapsecond.com
[mailto:leapsecs-bounces at leapsecond.com] On Behalf Of
leapsecs-request at leapsecond.com
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 1:29 PM
To: leapsecs at leapsecond.com
Subject: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3

Send LEAPSECS mailing list submissions to
leapsecs at leapsecond.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
leapsecs-request at leapsecond.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
leapsecs-owner at leapsecond.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of LEAPSECS digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1 (M. Warner Losh)
2. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1 (Richard Langley)
3. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1 (Poul-Henning Kamp)
4. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1 (Rob Seaman)
5. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1 (Poul-Henning Kamp)
6. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1 (Rob Seaman)
7. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1 (Ian Batten)
8. Re: LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1 (Poul-Henning Kamp)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:49:24 -0600 (MDT)
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp at bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
To: leapsecs at leapsecond.com, sla at ucolick.org
Message-ID: <20100902.124924.244264502706473427.imp at bsdimp.com>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii

In message: <20100902183636.GB13786 at ucolick.org>
Steve Allen <sla at ucolick.org> writes:

: On Thu 2010-09-02T19:26:03 +0100, Ian Batten hath writ:

: > It would be interesting to produce a list of countries where legal

: > time is not UTC, to see what the divide would look like. Wikipedia

: > claims Belgium, Canada and Eire: for extra fun, I bet most consumers

: > of time signals in Belgium use DCF77 or TDF, which are clearly in

UTC

: > land, rather than MSF.

:

: IANL, but based on a few documents I've seen

:

: Canadian standard time is provincial, not federal.

: Quebec adopted UTC on 2007-01-01, and the others have not.

:

: Venezuela standard time is based on the Greenwich meridian,

: whatever that means ...

:

: If that issue were pressed to the courts it would be very interesting

: to see the results of the cases in each country especially in the

: light of the shifts of the longitude origin during the last 60 years,

: the first 3 of which are here

: http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/BIHAR1968.JPG


I'd wager that UTC, whatever its realization, would likely trump any
locally written laws. After all, UTC has been a widely accepted
approximation of the local laws that's attained the force of law
through repetitive use (how many real-time realizations of UT1 are
propagated, in comparison to UTC). So underlying technical changes to
UTC may not change that. It would take a long, and complicated, legal
argument to show that UT1 is what should be used (even though nobody
knows what it is, day to day). Given the current miss-mash of legal
rulings around software, I'd guess that this wouldn't be a "clear cut"
ruling that people in this group have suggested.

Warner


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 15:42:31 -0300
From: Richard Langley <lang at UNB.ca>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
To: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <C5CF7EAE-4213-4498-833C-895A0A73EB65 at unb.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

Can't speak for the other Canadian provinces and territories, but the
official time for New Brunswick is based on "GMT":
<http://www.gnb.ca/0062/acts/acts/t-06.htm
>. Of course, they might actually mean UTC but that is not what the
act says.
-- Richard Langley


On 2-Sep-10, at 3:26 PM, Ian Batten wrote:


>

> On 2 Sep 2010, at 18:37, Rob Seaman wrote:

>>

>> For just one instance, the proposal is not only to cease leap

>> seconds, but to cease the reporting of DUT1

>

> Could you clarify that? DUT1 is surely produced by IERS, who aren't

> accountable to the ITU, and propagated by (as examples) WWVB and

> MSF, which are accountable via NIST to the US government and via NPL

> to the UK government. I assume the other nationally operated time

> sources have similar governance. I'm not sure how the ITU could

> stop MSF from reporting DUT1.

>

> But if you drop leap seconds in UTC, DUT1 relative to "new UTC"

> will rapidly exceed 0.9s, which breaks everything that consumes

> those signals and, for example, breaks astro-navigation unless

> somehow the format is fixed to allow for |DUT1|>0.9. It would

> also make the issue of precisely what UK time is a live issue again,

> because rather than the difference between de jure GMT and de facto

> UTC being "classic DUT1" which is for legal purposes negligible, it

> would start to get distinctly noticeable as "new DUT1" grew larger

> (assuming a means to propagate it).

>

> Why would the UK government accede to this just because the ITU say

> so, and not just align UTC(NPL) to "UTC classic" and declare leap

> seconds itself (based on DUT1 predictions, as today)?

>

> It would be interesting to produce a list of countries where legal

> time is not UTC, to see what the divide would look like. Wikipedia

> claims Belgium, Canada and Eire: for extra fun, I bet most consumers

> of time signals in Belgium use DCF77 or TDF, which are clearly in

> UTC land, rather than MSF.

>

> ian

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> LEAPSECS mailing list

> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com

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




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:12:23 +0000
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
To: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <84263.1283454743 at critter.freebsd.dk>

In message <3B33E89C51D2DE44BE2F0C757C656C880943780F at mail02.stk.com>,
"Finklema
n, Dave" writes:


>I believe that China, Brazil, Germany, and the UK

>support keeping the leap second.


Denmark is not going to return the questionaire at all, I talked to the
guy
who's table it landed on after I asked what they wanted to do to it, and
the answer is "file it".

It is anybodys guess what Denmark might vote once/if it hits the
pleanary
assembly, it seems to be left to the jugdment of "whoever holds the
paddle"
in questions where the Danish Government does not have a position (Ie:
pretty much anything other than frequency allocations).

--
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.


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:21:14 -0700
From: Rob Seaman <seaman at noao.edu>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
To: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <54965361-F9A3-4C52-8581-49366C9D61FE at noao.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Ian Batten wrote:


> Could you clarify that? DUT1 is surely produced by IERS, who aren't

accountable to the ITU, and propagated by (as examples) WWVB and MSF,
which are accountable via NIST to the US government and via NPL to the
UK government. I assume the other nationally operated time sources have
similar governance. I'm not sure how the ITU could stop MSF from
reporting DUT1.

Could anybody clarify this alphabet soup? :-)

The current "definition of UTC" in ITU-R TF.460 (blah blah blah)
includes both a description of leap seconds and a mechanism for DUT1.
The proposed redefinition does not.

A coherent engineering plan for a system with worldwide implications
would be much more complete and formalized and would represent a
consensus vision worked out in advance. The result of such a vote
should be evident and noncontroversial to all before the vote is taken.


> But if you drop leap seconds in UTC, DUT1 relative to "new UTC" will

rapidly exceed 0.9s, which breaks everything that consumes those signals
and, for example, breaks astro-navigation unless somehow the format is
fixed to allow for |DUT1|>0.9.

Indeed. And one suspects that the "non-opinions" of the International
Astronomical Union and the American Astronomical Society that are being
used to prop up this process will rapidly change when the resulting
remediation expense becomes evident to the broader astronomical
community.

Due diligence has not been satisfied.

Rob



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:22:25 +0000
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
To: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <84360.1283455345 at critter.freebsd.dk>

In message <20100902.124924.244264502706473427.imp at bsdimp.com>, "M.
Warner Losh
" writes:


>I'd wager that UTC, whatever its realization, would likely trump any

>locally written laws. After all, UTC has been a widely accepted

>approximation of the local laws that's attained the force of law

>through repetitive use [...]


Don't disregard ITU totally here. ITU-T has UTC written into the
standards for cross-TelCo billing interfaces/protocols.

--
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.


------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:24:08 -0700
From: Rob Seaman <seaman at noao.edu>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
To: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <CF5FDBC5-0165-4F5A-8C49-65A7FDDEE9D1 at noao.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:


> ITU-T has UTC written into the standards for cross-TelCo billing

interfaces/protocols.

So it's literally true:

Money makes the world go round



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 20:24:07 +0100
From: Ian Batten <igb at batten.eu.org>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
To: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <722F0D89-CBFA-423A-9C9E-6D919DED9C4D at batten.eu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes


>

> I'd wager that UTC, whatever its realization, would likely trump any

> locally written laws.


It'll be interesting in the UK

* There's no doubt that UK legal time is GMT, Interpretation Act 1978,
S.9

* There's no doubt that whatever GMT is, it's solar, and there's no
doubt that whatever UTC is, it isn't solar and would be even less
solar without leap seconds,

* There's no doubt that proposed legislation to change UK legal time
to UTC failed to be passed in 1997, and an extensive history of the
issue got read into Hansard.

You'd have a hell of a job showing UK time was UTC in the face of that.



> After all, UTC has been a widely accepted

> approximation of the local laws that's attained the force of law

> through repetitive use


That's right, but |DUT1|<1 means that for the purposes of integer
arithmetic it's barely more than a rounding error. There's clear,
modern legislation to the contrary.


> (how many real-time realizations of UT1 are

> propagated, in comparison to UTC). So underlying technical changes to

> UTC may not change that. It would take a long, and complicated, legal

> argument to show that UT1 is what should be used


Not in the UK, see above.


> (even though nobody

> knows what it is, day to day).


That's the paradox, isn't it!

ian


------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:29:18 +0000
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 1
To: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <84419.1283455758 at critter.freebsd.dk>

In message <CF5FDBC5-0165-4F5A-8C49-65A7FDDEE9D1 at noao.edu>, Rob Seaman
writes:

>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>

>> ITU-T has UTC written into the standards for cross-TelCo billing

interfaces/protocols.

>

>So it's literally true:

>

> Money makes the world go round


Ohh, you bet. Don't remember that railroads was what got us timezones
in the first place, and to the right people they were fantastically
profitable.

If you want to keep leapseconds, all you have to do is come up with
the business case. And vice versa.

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


End of LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3
***************************************


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:08:51 +0000
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3
To: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <84827.1283458131 at critter.freebsd.dk>

In message <3B33E89C51D2DE44BE2F0C757C656C8809437936 at mail02.stk.com>,
"Finklema
n, Dave" writes:


>In other words, if UTC changes and is

>still called UTC, the new definition would be the statutory

requirement.

>Every process and system developed for the previous definition would be

>illegal.


Unless of course, if the nature of the change was to make the presently
non-compliant, and therefore presumably illegal, systems compliant and
thus legal :-)

--
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.


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 13:12:05 -0700
From: Rob Seaman <seaman at noao.edu>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 3
To: Leap Second Discussion List <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Message-ID: <25804530-DBBA-4AAD-B6D9-441B59DCF9DC at noao.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:


> "Finkleman, Dave" writes:

>

>> In other words, if UTC changes and is still called UTC, the new

definition would be the statutory requirement. Every process and system
developed for the previous definition would be illegal.

>

> Unless of course, if the nature of the change was to make the

presently non-compliant, and therefore presumably illegal, systems
compliant and thus legal :-)

When telescopes are outlawed, only outlaws will have telescopes.



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs


End of LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 45, Issue 4
***************************************

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list