On Jan 7, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>
>> Put it this way. Diurnal periods are ubiquitous in our cultural norms and
>> the technical systems underlying them.
>
> That is a value judgment which should be left to governments.
No, it is a patently obvious fact. You appear to think I am making a
rhetorical argument (what is "rhetoric" in Danish?) - rather I am making an
assertion of fact. As with all assertions it might be incorrect (but it
isn't), but it isn't open to opinion polling by governments, the ITU, or
anybody else.
Diurnal:
adjective
1) of or pertaining to a day or each day; daily.
It also has a secondary meaning:
2) of or belonging to the daytime (opposed to nocturnal).
Examine the word nocturnal:
1) of or pertaining to the night (opposed to diurnal).
Are diurnal/nocturnal the only two options? Well no.
Crepuscular:
1) of, pertaining to, or resembling twilight; dim; indistinct.
Crepuscular animals are those that forage or are otherwise active at dawn or
dusk.
I suspect there are adjectives in many other languages that more finely
subdivide the days of our lives. It is not as simple as Jim Morrison (and you)
suggest:
Day destroys the night
Night divides the day
There are gradations and nuances and subtleties that the ITU is attempting to
ignore.
> Who are you to decide that working nightshifts is not according to our
> "cultural norms" ?
They certainly are. Who are you to infer that I was saying otherwise?
Nightshifts also occur at a frequency determined by the synodic length of day.
This is the diurnal rate (meaning #1), whether or not we're talking about
diurnal (meaning #2) or nocturnal or more nuanced activities such as described
by the word "crepuscular".
A reason to choose to use an interval timescale such as TAI or GPS is to keep
an even "atomic" frequency cadence to better than a fractional (SI) second
level. Universal time on the other hand, currently including UTC, keeps our
long-term cadence to an even synodic frequency of better than a fractional
(solar) day level. These are two distinct master clocks that we are
synchronizing in each case.
Factions at the ITU are making the assertion that this is somehow no longer
necessary. I am saying they are incorrect. It is a question of fact, not
opinion, which assertion is true.
Rob
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
