[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 82, Issue 6

[Warner Losh]

On Aug 10, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Peter Vince wrote:


> I believe that is false logic: that a piece of equipment *CAN* deal

> with a leap-second doesn't necessarily mean it *HAS* to have them.

> That would be the same logic as: "All birds have wings, therefore

> anything with wings is a bird."

> 

> F'rinstance: Google's time-slew system makes special provision when

> told about the forthcoming leap-second, but will carry on perfectly

> well if there aren't any.


The only thing that breaks when leap seconds don't happen anymore are things that depend on the earth's angle: backup celestial navigation and telescopes. Even these will work if there's provision for DUT1 > 1s. Everything else keeps working because everything else doesn't depend on the earth's angle. It won't be until the number becomes quite large (in the thousands) that people will notice since the accumulation is slow relative to the lifetime of man. There may be philosophical reasons to not allow this to happen, but that gets into ideology and definitions of time, which reasonable folks can disagree on.

Warner



> Peter

> 

> 

> 

> On 10 August 2013 17:11, Finkleman, Dave <dfinkleman at agi.com> wrote:

>>> There is no definitive assessment of the costs either to fix things currently broken by leap seconds or to change things now compatible If the definition of UTC is changed.   However, things now broken do not depend on the leap second whereas those that have implemented it correctly obviously do.  Why is that so hard for many to understand?

>> 

>> DF

>> 

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> LEAPSECS mailing list

>> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com

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

> _______________________________________________

> LEAPSECS mailing list

> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com

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