In reply to one of my posts, M. Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > UTC works for navigation, but leap seconds pose problems for other
: > users of time. Stating absolutely that UTC is not broken ignores
: > these other users.
:
: Those "other uses," for whom leap seconds pose a problem, should be
: using a time scale that does not have leap seconds. They would be better
: served, for example, by TAI.
You really should read the archives of this list. We've been over
this in great detail.
This rather rude reply turns out to be a cruel fraud. I had already
begun to review the archives of this list. After receiving this message,
I continued to do so. After spending about 18 hours in the archives, I
had read from the first postings in 2001, through the 2001 postings and
the 2002 postings, up to about July 2003. There are MANY references to
TAI as a suitable time scale for users who prefer not to deal with leap
seconds.
If "we've been over this in great detail," I would like a more specific
reference to the postings that did so. Also, "we've been over this in
great detail" seems not to have settled the issue.
It's cruel to insult a newbie so, and cause him to spend hours and hours
perusing the archives, to no avail.
TAI is specifically contraindicated as a time
scale.
> TAI is not currently recommended by its creators as a viable time
> scale.
>
These claims are intellectually fraudulent. The archives in fact support
the opposite of what Mr. Losh contends.
--
James Maynard
Salem, Oregon, USA
