[LEAPSECS] The ends we seek
scolebourne at joda.org
Sat Jan 21 06:18:31 EST 2012
On 20 January 2012 23:51, Ian Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> wrote:
> > (I would note that the implications of this approach appear to mean
> > that the +01:00 of Paris today, would eventually become +02:00, then
> > +03:00 and so on to +infinity. A fairly written document would note
> > that as being the case and indicate when in the future it would be a
> > problem.)
> So what? Given a long enough view, the maximum number of leap seconds in
> the current system (24 per year) will be insufficient to maintain both
> 86400 SI seconds per day and correct solar alignment. Yet further into the
> future, a leap second every midnight (which the current standard doesn't
> permit) won't be enough to maintain |DUT1|<1s. I don't see that being used
> as an argument against the status quo.
Try to stop looking to argue the point and think about what I mean by a
"fairly written document". Clearly the concept of ever decreasing offsets
is an outcome of the proposal, so it should be noted. But the document can
also indicate how bad the problem is, and thus effectively indicate it as a
IMO it is the lack of a consistently written and fair set of options and
their implications that is holding the debate back in the ITU and elsewhere.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LEAPSECS