Re: Schreiver AFB warns about leapsec

[Brian Garrett]

- Original Message -
From: Tom Van Baak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Schreiver AFB warns about leapsec


   While you're at it let's change when leaps occur; not
   just at 23:59:59
   ...
  I second this too, 23:59:59 is  the  worst  time  to
  insert a leap second, since failing to implement  it
  leaves you with the wrong day  (month  and  possibly
  year) at the very second it occurs.

 Given the way Olympics are promoted these days,
 as well as stadium naming rights, billboards, web
 advertising, and google adwords, perhaps the ITU
 can get commercial sponsorship for future scheduled
 leap second events. Commercial interests have long
 since claimed trademarks on otherwise free letters,
 words, and symbols. So how about time itself?

 The income could be applied as grants to those trying
 to correctly implement and debug the growing global
 list of time interconnected technologies. And no small
 percent to astronomers so they have real-time precision
 access to UT1. Everyone is happy. (If this happens I will
 deny ever having suggested it).

 Coca-Cola is the official sponsor of the December 2005
 leap second. The one second pause that refreshes.

 Panasonic is the official sponsor of the June 2007
 leap second. Just slightly ahead of Earth time.

 /tvb

WWV...You give us 22 minutes, we'll give you 21 minutes and 60 seconds.


Brian

Re: Schreiver AFB warns about leapsec

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francois Meyer writes:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

 In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on.fr, Francois Meyer writes
 :

 I second this too, 23:59:59 is  the  worst  time  to
 insert a leap second, since failing to implement  it
 leaves you with the wrong day  (month  and  possibly
 year) at the very second it occurs.

 That is probably one of the strongest arguments for retaining that
 moment of insertion:  That way computer bugs are more likely to
 be noticed.

UTC is not a debugging tool, it is an  international
standard. Software is an an issue  but  I  think  it
cannot justify in itself  that  leap  second  impact
should be as large as possible.

It must be wonderful to live in a world where software can just be
ignored or marginalized at whim, I really envy you.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.