On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 23:09, Steve Rooke <sar10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 July 2011 03:01, Poul-Henning Kamp <p...@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > In message < > cactjvny8h2ethr_m6dquxhabhjb9nfgyauhjcn1bf-umh+k...@mail.gmail.com> > > , Steve Rooke writes: > > > >>Ah! I get you. Not 10 leap seconds at 20 year intervals, just an > >>almanac to indicate when they will be for up to 20 years in advance. I > >>guess that means they could take a bye for any scheduled event that is > >>not required, as in the 7 year period without one. > > > > Nope, once they have scheduled a leap-second, it happens. > > And if it's not needed? > Then they are exiled from Gallifrey, and fed to the Daleks. Seriously, if we are announcing 20 years in advance, we accept that DUT may be as large as 4 or 5 secs. In which case, having an extra one (or not having one when required) will not materially change the _long-term_ tracking. Within a few years, the effect should lessen. Although I would rather that leap secs stay, and DUT is kept small, if we are not changing the definition of UTC, but loosening the strictness of the tracking in the "short"-term, this may be a good compromise. PHK, in your proposal, the long term stability of "low, bounded DUT" would be guaranteed? -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.