[LEAPSECS] happy anniversary pips

[Rob Seaman]

On Feb 9, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:


> On Feb 9, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:

>> If anything has prevented leap seconds from death it is the weakness of the proposal itself.  And the real-world distinction between Universal Time and Atomic Time; "Death to leap seconds!" is the rallying cry of somebody who wants to pretend that two distinct concepts are the same thing.

> 

> It is more of a 'Atomic Time is a completely adequate basis for civil time' by rejecting the notion that exact alignment to snyodic day is a requirement. Apart from some naming sophistry, that's the root of all the discussions and disagreements here.


There’s a lot that could be said in response, but I’ll just point to the proceedings of the Charlottesville and Exton meetings:

	http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/
	http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/2011/preprints/

and to various links including the archives of this and the original leapsecs mailing lists:

	http://futureofutc.org/links.html

There is also a link to the ISO position on terminology.  And, of course, it isn't "exact alignment" that would be sacrificed, but any alignment at all.  Like I said, it is an attempt to confuse two different concepts.

Rob