### Re: Monsters from the id

On Mon 2006/01/16 00:40:28 CDT, John Cowan wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL I realize the ALHP has severe problems with this, but I don't approve of the ALHP anyhow (save perhaps tactically, as explained). Agreement! But does anyone think that the leap hour proposal is anything

### Re: Monsters from the id

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:09:20AM -0700, Rob Seaman wrote: On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:46 AM, John Cowan wrote: In the end, it will be impossible to maintain the notion that a solar day is 24h of 60m of 60s each: we wind up, IIRC, with the solar day and lunar month both at about

### Re: Monsters from the id

On Fri 2006/01/13 18:39:01 CDT, John Cowan wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL The situation with the proposed leap hour is quite different. Given that AEST is defined as UTC+1000, and AEDT as UTC+1100, would someone care to speculate, in terms similar to the above, what will

### Re: Monsters from the id

Mark Calabretta scripsit: If you go through the exercise trying to tie leap hours to DST, as I challenged, you will discover that it raises many questions that are not addressed by the leap hour proposal. I realize the ALHP has severe problems with this, but I don't approve of the ALHP anyhow

### Re: Monsters from the id

On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:46 AM, John Cowan wrote: In the end, it will be impossible to maintain the notion that a solarday is 24h of 60m of 60s each: we wind up, IIRC, with the solar dayand lunar month both at about 47 current solar days. There's a lot of difference between what happens over a

### Re: Monsters from the id

It should be clear that the gaps and repeats are fictitious, especially if you think of AEST and AEDT as existing beyond the times when they are in legal use. Putting it in practical terms, suppose I have a traffic accident at 0230 on 2006/04/02, what time will the police officer write in

### Re: Monsters from the id

John Cowan wrote: [If TAI - 33 s were taken as the new basis for civil timescales, then] It is UTC that would be eliminated as the basis for local time. It could be maintained for such other purposes as anyone might have. Yes, the IERS could maintain it as the timescale for a

### Re: Monsters from the id

On Thu 2006/01/12 02:36:44 CDT, John Cowan wrote in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL We already have that repeated time sequence and gap in much of the world, and live with it. These repetitions would be no better and no worse; when a gap is present, the local sovereignty can omit the

### Re: Monsters from the id

On Jan 12, 2006, at 12:36 AM, John Cowan wrote:No one, at least not on this list, is arguing for an alignment of theabsurd leap hour proposal (henceforth ALHP) with DST changes.I went rummaging through the ITU proposal and back as far as Torino.  Found this comment from a LEAPSECS thread on 28

### Re: Monsters from the id

Rob Seaman scripsit: I went rummaging through the ITU proposal and back as far as Torino. Found this comment from a LEAPSECS thread on 28 July 2003: At Torino the proponents of omitting leap seconds supposed that the governments of the world might handle this situation using leap hours

### Re: Monsters from the id

Rob Seaman scripsit: And the point I'm making is that you can't shift timezones at will to accomplish this without creating seams in legally realized time. We already have seams in legally recognized time. Just making the dark stay put would result in ambiguous timekeeping. Daylight saving