On 3/4/12 12:32 PM, Dave Hart wrote [in part]: > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 16:27, unruh <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thus one could, as Hasler does, aruge that UTC is simply an aberation, >> like leap years, and like time zones, from the orderly progression of >> the seconds (TAI), and should be handled in exactly the same way as leap >> days, daylight saving time, or timezones. Others, apparenly like you, >> like the idea that the seconds track the day as well as possible. It is >> a matter of preference, not some sort of "natural order". > > I have no problem with people having a preference for TAI (and its > rare days of length 86401 seconds) over UTC (with leap seconds and > consistent 86400 second days).
That is backwards. TAI never has a day of 886401 seconds. Thus, noon TAI slowly deviates from the mean noon at Greenwich. UTC does not have consistent 86400-second days. When there is a leap-second, UTC has a day of 886401 seconds. -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/> Concerned about someone (e.g., the government) snooping into your E-mail? Use PGP. See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/> _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
