Rob Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The point is, however, that nothing - absolutely nothing - > would then protect legal timekeeping in the U.S. or elsewhere from > the whims of future timekeepers at the ITU. > > Say we go with leap hours. UTC isn't therefore less malleable than > currently - but rather more so in the only sense that matters for > legal timekeeping. That is, a small entrenched committee would be > able to vote arbitrary changes to international time precisely > because the standard would no longer be tied to any physical > phenomena. One might wonder why changes might be made. I'll only > point out - why not? What in practice would stop these individuals > from leaping the clock forward or backward at will, or from changing > the rate of UTC, or for that matter from making the clocks run > backwards?
We already have a historical precedent for this kind of manipulation -- corrupt Roman calendar keeper priests who adjusted the calendar to extend or shorten the term of office of various elected officials. MS
