On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote: > On 17 Nov 2011 at 11:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> But the really interesting thing to remember here, is that if you >> "asked the railroads about leap seconds", what are the chances you >> would get somebody on the other end of the line, who knew that the >> MVB standards would have to be revised, and _all_ compliant devices >> have to be reworked, retested and recertified to the new standard, >> in order to *continue* leapseconds ? > > It seems rather bizarre that they'd have to *change* a standard in > order to *keep on following* the standard that's been in effect since > 1972, namely the use of leap seconds.
That's the problem with leap seconds in a nutshell, btw. Nobody but extreme time geeks thinks about them. Nobody thinks they are important. Nobody thinks that they matter. Lots of people have a "well, it's just a second, things will mostly self correct if I screw it up, so why bother." It hasn't been until the last decade that computers have been connected enough for it to start to matter and all the "it doesn't matter to me, so screw everybody else" attitude is getting in the way. This standard is but one example of that. The marketplace is voting with their feet that this standard is lame and not worth doing right. Makes it kinda hard for people that want to do them right. Warner _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
