Warner Losh scripsit:
> This is the biggest misunderstanding [...] an hour off of solar time.
I now abbreviate this whole argument with the word "Kashi".
(To reiterate: |LMT-LCT| in Kashi, a city in western China (which has
no DST), is about 3 hours.)
> >But again, giving up leap seconds in
Leap seconds are asserted to be a risk. Does their lack present
fewer risks? Prove it.
No, you prove it. Such rhetorical devices are designed to divide
and separate,
No, my rhetoric really isn't designed for that purpose. And even if
it were so - how does that possibly undermine the idea t
> First risk - do all airlines and shipping lines automatically hew to
> NT for all purposes? Or will UT time signals persist for some some
> subsystems of some planes and ships from some countries under some
> circumstances? A lack of imagination of how this might occur is no
> protection - only
Poul-Henning Kamp says:
If we abandon leapseconds today to avoid getting computer problems,
we still have several hundred years of time to decide how to deal
with any long term effects.
Two other points to add to earlier replies:
1) If UTC is preserved similar to its current definition (but p
From: Michael Deckers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Accommodating both camps
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:50:59 +
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on 2006-01-25:
>
> > If we abandon leapseconds today to avoid getting computer problems,
> > we still have several hundred years of time t
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on 2006-01-25:
> If we abandon leapseconds today to avoid getting computer problems,
> we still have several hundred years of time to decide how to
> deal with any long term effects.
I do not think so. When civil time is no longer connected to solar
time (which
On Wed 2006-01-25T12:31:26 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> If we abandon leapseconds today to avoid getting computer problems,
> we still have several hundred years of time to decide how to
> deal with any long term effects.
Please note that the "we" above does not include those of us who ar
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Deckers writes:
> But is TI really better? Celestial navigation can also be life-critical,
> and solar time is engrained since millenia in so many legal and cultural
> conventions that it is hard to estimate the cost of adopting a civil time
> that n
Warner Losh wrote:
> Here's why I'm in camp #2: ...
All your arguments are sound and convincing -- current UTC is causing
many problems, and I certainly do not want a leap second to happen
while I am undergoing open heart surgery.
But is TI really better? Celestial navigation can
