On Jan 31, 2011, at 11:33 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> And you don't think a software update in the next 8-10 years could fix that
> issue, given that DoD is likely to lean on the vendor to get this fixed ?
"Fix" is not the right word for something that is not currently broken.
That said, it is disingenuous to say there are 8-10 years. The notion appears
to be that the redefinition of UTC will take effect 5 years after adoption.
Presumably you are allowing not only for the 1.5 years until the vote, but also
for a similar latency until the succeeding leap second would have occurred.
This latency, however, is as likely to be negative as positive. With knowledge
that the standard was due to change, it might well be the case that an earlier
leap second during that 5 year window would be embargoed. Leap seconds have
historically been scheduled as soon as possible:
http://iraf.noao.edu/~seaman/leap
(See the plot under "leap second scheduling.)
There is no reason to believe that there will be any delay between the
redefinition taking effect and |DUT1| exceeding 0.9s.
At the other end, from the point of view of stakeholders (including DoD
"vendors"), the clock will have been ticking for many months or even years
before the issue is brought to their attention. Precious little ITU resources
have been invested in UTC educational efforts over the past decade. That lack
will become evident when the ITU has to deal with the fall-out from its hasty
consensus-abjuring decision-making process.
Rob
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
