On Feb 9, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Warner Losh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Rob Seaman wrote:
>> If anything has prevented leap seconds from death it is the weakness of the
>> proposal itself. And the real-world distinction between Universal Time and
>> Atomic Time; "Death to leap seconds!" is the rallying cry of somebody who
>> wants to pretend that two distinct concepts are the same thing.
>
> It is more of a 'Atomic Time is a completely adequate basis for civil time'
> by rejecting the notion that exact alignment to snyodic day is a requirement.
> Apart from some naming sophistry, that's the root of all the discussions and
> disagreements here.
There’s a lot that could be said in response, but I’ll just point to the
proceedings of the Charlottesville and Exton meetings:
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/2011/preprints/
and to various links including the archives of this and the original leapsecs
mailing lists:
http://futureofutc.org/links.html
There is also a link to the ISO position on terminology. And, of course, it
isn't "exact alignment" that would be sacrificed, but any alignment at all.
Like I said, it is an attempt to confuse two different concepts.
Rob
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
