On 2011-09-20, at 09:11, Ian Batten wrote: > On 19 Sep 2011, at 2350, Rob Seaman wrote: >> IThat requirement (description of the problem space) is that civil >> time-of-day is mean solar time. > > So astronomers say. No-one else cares, and if they should, astronomers are > making an incredibly bad job of explaining why.
Well, it has been that way for ages, and it's the very reason why UTC is defined as it is: to stay near UT within a small margin. Second-guessing who cares, or having an opinion on who should care is rather condescending and also irrelevant to the (quite serious) issue of reliability and trustworthiness of standards. If I, for whatever reason, chose UTC for use as a time standard, do I have to explain why I don't want its definition to change? Really? I think not. And I won't. I you, for whaverer reason, chose UTC for use as a time standard, and afterwards you're unhappy about it, is it reasonable for you to insist on a change in definition? This is left as an execrsise for the reader. Note well: I'm completely fine with a change in broadcast time scale to one without leap seconds. But I'm astonished at how many (seemingly sane) people deem it reasonable to even contemplate breaking UTC's promise of being an estimate of UT. I can't believe we're having this discussion. Incredible. N _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
