On Thu 2011/02/17 10:52:26 +1100, Mark Calabretta wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>That said, if leap second insertions were simply deferred for 10
>years, DUT1 would probably grow to no more than about 6s (even
>including deceleration), which seems much preferable to letting
On Tue 2011/02/15 18:51:58 PDT, Rob Seaman wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>My point is just that archival data is sufficient to characterize the
>real world behavior of the algorithms already developed. We needn't
>wait ten years to know if data limited to what was available
On Wed 2011/02/16 01:34:57 -, Tony Finch wrote
in a message to: Leap Second Discussion List
>> I have been saying that, as a reason for changing UTC today, it is
>> a specious argument that should be rejected.
>
>Yes.
Agreement!
>It's also a bogus argument for keeping leap seconds.
If any
Stephen Colebourne said:
> Local time
> * definition: local-time - the time-scale local to a region of the Earth
> * definition: offset - the duration that local-time differs from the
> locally recognised legal standard time-scale
Sorry, that's nonsense. By definition, that "offset" is always zero
