Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on 2006-01-25:
If we abandon leapseconds today to avoid getting computer problems,
we still have several hundred years of time to decide how to
deal with any long term effects.
I do not think so. When civil time is no longer connected to solar
time (which
Warner Losh scripsit:
This is the biggest misunderstanding [...] an hour off of solar time.
I now abbreviate this whole argument with the word Kashi.
(To reiterate: |LMT-LCT| in Kashi, a city in western China (which has
no DST), is about 3 hours.)
But again, giving up leap seconds in UTC
It seems clear that we have two camps, or schools of thought, on this
mailing list:
1) Those who favour retaining the status quo ante, in which civil time
is based on UTC and the standard time and frequency stations broadcast
UTC; and
2) Those who find it difficult to cope with UTC's leap
Oops, I meant to say wish to abolish leap seconds in the third
paragraph, rather than which to abolish leap seconds.
James Maynard wrote:
It seems clear that we have two camps, or schools of thought, on this
mailing list:
1) Those who favour retaining the status quo ante, in which civil time
James Maynard wrote:
I wonder, though, whether those in the other camp would find it
acceptable to have the standard time and frequency stations not only
broadcast UTC and DUT1 (= UT1 - UTC, to 0.1 s resolution), but also to
broadcast DTAI (= TAI - UTC, 1 s resolution)?
A full
It seems clear that we have two camps, or schools of thought, on this
mailing list:
1) Those who favour retaining the status quo ante, in which civil time
is based on UTC and the standard time and frequency stations broadcast
UTC; and
2) Those who find it difficult to cope with UTC's leap
