[LEAPSECS] Standards of time zones -Brooks Harris

[Rob Seaman]

On Jan 10, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at PHK.FREEBSD.DK> wrote:


> Charles Stross is one of the most gifted and insightfull Science

> Fiction writers of all time, ...

> 

> A good introduction to his is this short story about coffee:

> 

> 	http://www.antipope.org/charlie/fiction/coffee.html

> 

> After that, read "The Atrocity Archives" and "Rule 34”


Thanks.  Will take a look.

Not pertinent, however, to my point about religious metaphors emanating from antipope.org.  One might, for instance, be skeptical of comments about evolution arising from a creationist web site, however skillful the writer :-)


>> Comparing [POSIX] to the

>> clarity and poetry of the Nicene Creed is absurd (and rather offensive).

> 

> No, from a organizational/comparative point of view, he is spot on.


I understood the metaphor.  I suppose one could draw parallels between modern timekeeping discussions and the computation of Easter.


> as I understand it, USGov is working dilligently to make time conform

> to POSIX, not the other way around.


A small group is working the system.  POSIX as a talking point is a target of opportunity.  The US government is overwhelmingly unaware that this is under debate, and might well find the suggestion reasonable that UTC be retained for backwards compatibility.  Did you happen to ask your military officer with lots of stripes about that?  Was he aware of the notion of ITU recommending an alternate timescale under a different name?


>> Rather, there have been ecumenical discussions throughout the

>> history of Unix - for example my own modest experience of porting

>> a large astronomy package to a "dual-universe" SysV/BSD hybrid in

>> the mid-1980s.

> 

> A Pyramid by any chance ? :-)


No, Masscomp - never a major player.


>> Future community infrastructure - future computing communion, if you will -

>> cannot be built on faulty physical models of the universe.

> 

> I'd agree to "should not", but evidence from all other technological

> areas indicate that there is no mistake big enough that it cannot be

> overlooked and rationalized.


You’re making my argument.  Thanks!


> (CH3CH2)4Pb in gasoline was just about the most efficient way to distribute

> leads neuro-toxilogical effects to all children in the world for several

> generations.


I wasn't saying that decision-making can’t adopt bad and non-physically coherent positions, but rather that (eventually) "the truth will out”.

Is leaded gas widely used anymore?  (Not a rhetorical question.  Long gone in the US, but don’t know about elsewhere.)


> Industrialized junkfood is almost perfectly optimized to eliminate

> all but sugar, salt and fat and starch from our diet.


You have me there, but there is a backlash, e.g., http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/ (And then a backlash to the backlash to the backlash in recent days.)


> And don't even get me started about television and a thought-paralysing

> means of mass-subduction.


Which is rapidly evolving to channels of content divorced from traditional corporate roles.  These examples are more about emergent properties than fundamental standards.


> In an ideal world, run by people who all have the surname "phd",

> this crap would not have happened.

> 

> But then again, in all likelyhood neither would a lot of other stuff

> have, and certainly not Verdi Operas.


Recommend http://www.nealstephenson.com/anathem/ pertinent to this.

Rob