On 12/18/2010 10:49, Finkleman, Dave wrote: >> For everyone to criticize, I have almost convinced the USAF to issue a >> position statement to OSD and the State Department pleading that UTC not >> change from the current paradigm. The rationale is that UTC is called out >> as the mandatory service for event time tagging and synchronization. As >> such, contractors must implement UTC in every Air Force system. If UTC >> changes, there will be consequences throughout current and emerging systems. >> Any change would mandate extensive assessments and mitigation. No change >> being the best alternative for them is a no-brainer.
On Dec 18, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > I know that the high precision time systems will likely work better if UTC > drops leap seconds. That's one area I know will be cheaper if leap seconds > are simply discarded. As someone who has worked in that field, I can tell > you that each leap second costed the company I worked for between one and two > man months to validate and correct problems found in the software. Sure, the > software should work, but in every leap second simulation I was involved > with, there was some problem. And often there was some problem 6 months > after the leap second due to unwise assumptions that were made to fix the > leap second case. > > It is far from a 'no brainer' that not changing is the best, most > cost-effective choice for that segment. It will be no worse than it is today > if no change is made, but it likely would be much better if a change to > eliminate leaps was made. Other segments may differ, of course. Then it should be straightforward to perform the inventory of the different segments, systems, and software to demonstrate one or the other of these assertions. Rob _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
