On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:37:24AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > : But that's in contrast to your saying that the epoch would be December 31, > : 1999 at 23:59:29.0 UTC. Or did I misread your earlier messages? > > Yes, you misread it. I was angling for 00:00:00.0 UTC. But it scarcely > matters if UTC keeps screwing around with leap seconds, and civil time > stays locked to UTC. I personally think we should add a bunch of leap > seconds at the beginning of every year divisible by 100, and leave the > rest of the years alone.
...This seems to be quite consistent with the rumoured US proposal to abolish leap seconds by adding leap hours every 500 years or so: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05210/545823.stm Ending leap seconds would make the sun start rising later and later by the clock -- a few seconds later each decade. To compensate, the U.S. has proposed adding in a "leap hour" every 500 to 600 years, which also accounts for the fact that the Earth's rotation is expected to slow down even further. That would be no more disruptive than the annual switch to daylight-saving time, said Ronald Beard of the Naval Research Laboratory, who chairs the ITU's special committee on leap seconds and favors their abolishment. "It's not like someone's going to be going to school at four in the afternoon or something," he said. Thanks, /Autrijus/
Description: PGP signature