On Sat 2015-01-17T19:30:10 -0800, Dennis Ferguson hath writ: > But the paper also predicts that between when it was written in 1999
Discussing the numbers and changes to them is missing the point. First there were going to be too many leap seconds, so we have to stop inserting them. Now there are going to be hardly any leap seconds, so it's okay to stop inserting them. Perhaps Goldilocks will show up and announces a prediction of the number of leap seconds that is just right, but as noted in https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/Documents/ITU-R-FAQ-UTC.pdf to ensure that all the technical options have been fully addressed in further studies related to the issue. It was necessary because the decision was not only of a technical nature but had some regulatory and legal consequences. the ITU-R has already noticed that Goldilocks hasn't given a technical description of the affected systems which justifies trespassing in the house of the Three Bears. It is clear that there are systems doing just fine using time scales which have no leap seconds, and they started using those time scales without any help from the ITU-R. I think the ITU-R would better ratify existing proven practices of systems which are working okay rather than change things that affect the laws of member nations. -- Steve Allen <[email protected]> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
