In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Seaman writes:
>> Changes to, including abolishment of, leapseconds will only affect
>> people who measure positions of celestial objects with high precision.
>
>One cost is the uneven burden of remediation to those who would be
>definitely affected by this redefinition of universal time. ("GMT
>may be regarded as the general equivalent of UT.") Astronomy would
>indeed be facing a very large unfunded mandate merely to retain our
>current functionality.
As I have said before: if astronomers played their hand wisely,
they'd say "We can live without leapseconds if you give us $N to
handle the transition", they might be able to get some nice
upgrades to instrumentation out of this.
>I used the subjunctive "would", above, for the cost to astronomy
>since this only kicks in when the policy actually changes. At some
>point the cost of the DUT1 inventory will kick in merely at the
>report of a possible change to the definition of UTC. I suggest that
>the precision timekeeping community should bear the cost since it is
>their actions that will have triggered it.
This sounds more like sour grapes or a sore looser than anything
else: "Those pescy atomic clocks stole our thunder- Waaaah!"
--
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.
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
