Matsakis, Demetrios wrote: > Although I believe I included amateur astronomer concerns uncritically in my > URSI report on the leap seconds, I have always wondered how many astronomers > who are at the level of needing to correct for UT1 would not be competent to > do so.
Ah yes. DUT1. The point is that currently very few need to correct for DUT1, but that redefining UTC would drastically elevate the importance of this issue. Most of the time *I* don't care about DUT1 given the current standard. It is precisely the ITU's behavior that is making DUT1 a critical issue. > I would guess that most would consider doing so part of the fun. Fun that their telescope tracking breaks? Fun that vendors get slammed with support requests? Describing this as "fun" for some other community is itself amazingly smug. But put all that aside. Consider the word "guess". The whole point of system engineering is to avoid guesses. What you are basically saying is that you spent 10 minutes thinking about these issues as an unappointed arbiter of some other community whose advice you chose not to seek directly. "Uncritical" indeed. Look before you leap. > After all, there is a horologist in everyone who is technically advanced. Huh? Rob -- A technically advanced horologist?
<<inline: mib-ambassador.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
