Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> "Finkleman, Dave" writes:
>
>> The response takes more than an email. Read our AAS paper delivered in
>> Toronto in August 2010. I don't remember the number, but Google will
>> work. There is a long matrix of impacts [...]
>
> You mean the paper that had
>
> Computers not related to astronomy:
> Programmers should just fix their bugs.
>
> Under the "continuing leap-seconds" impacts ?
I don't see that bullet. Dr. Finkleman appears to be referring to "The Debate
over UTC and Leap Seconds" by Finkleman, Seago and Seidelmann:
http://www.agi.com/resources/user-resources/downloads/white-paper.aspx?id=96
The "long matrix of impacts" in the appendix does however have similarly
concise bullets that could also be taken out of context. One might alternately
read the 15 pages before the appendix or consult some of the 57 references
cited.
As long as we're consulting references, there's PHK's "Time from Microseconds
to Leap Seconds, or Dr. StrangeTime:
How I learned to stop worrying and love the leap-second":
http://phk.freebsd.dk/pubs/usno_slides.pdf
that has the completely unsupported assertion that:
Cheapest:
Discontinue Leap Seconds:
Software ”just works” without changes
Rather we might all consider performing an initial UTC inventory on various
classes of software, not just astronomical or aerospace applications:
http://futureofutc.org/preprints/36_AAS_11-677_Seaman.pdf
It won't be cheap for my community. And it certainly won't "just work" without
extensive code changes.
Rob Seaman
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
