Re: [LEAPSECS] [time-nuts] Leap second to be introduced at midnight UTC December 31 this year

2016-07-21 Thread Hal Murray
s...@ucolick.org said: > This idea pushes extra complexity into every implementation of low level > kernel-space software, firmware, and hardware. That's nice as a policy for > full employment of programmers, but it's hard to justify by any other > metric. Instead those low level places should b

Re: [LEAPSECS] [time-nuts] Leap second to be introduced at midnight UTC December 31 this year

2016-07-21 Thread Tom Van Baak
Hi Tom, > Does your proposal allow for a Zero leap second Nope, LSEM avoids the zero leap second situation. That's the idea: to always have a leap second. Either an add or a delete, at the end of every month. The beauty is that it wouldn't violate how UTC is already defined. Leap seconds would

Re: [LEAPSECS] [time-nuts] Leap second to be introduced at midnight UTC December 31 this year

2016-07-21 Thread Tom Van Baak
Steve Allen wrote: > This idea pushes extra complexity into every implementation of low > level kernel-space software, firmware, and hardware. That's nice as a > policy for full employment of programmers, but it's hard to justify by > any other metric. Instead those low level places should be as

Re: [LEAPSECS] [time-nuts] Leap second to be introduced at midnight UTC December 31 this year

2016-07-21 Thread Steve Allen
On Thu 2016-07-21T10:27:57 -0700, Tom Van Baak hath writ: > Time to mention this again... > Every UTC-aware device would 1) know how to reliably insert or > delete a leap second, because bugs would be found by developers within > a month or two, not by end-users years or decades in the future, and

[LEAPSECS] a less intrusive procedure

2016-07-21 Thread John Sauter
On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 10:27 -0700, Tom Van Baak wrote: > Time to mention this again... > > If we adopted the LSEM (Leap Second Every Month) model then none of > this would be a problem. The idea is not to decide *if* there will be > leap second, but to force every month to have a leap second. The

Re: [LEAPSECS] [time-nuts] Leap second to be introduced at midnight UTC December 31 this year

2016-07-21 Thread Rob Seaman
Hi Tom, This message is an excellent example of why we invited you to speak at the Science of Time symposium ;-) It was a shame you couldn’t make it, since you would have made an excellent meeting even stronger. But future meetings in the series seem very likely and let me register an invitati

Re: [LEAPSECS] [time-nuts] Leap second to be introduced at midnight UTC December 31 this year

2016-07-21 Thread Tom Van Baak
Time to mention this again... If we adopted the LSEM (Leap Second Every Month) model then none of this would be a problem. The idea is not to decide *if* there will be leap second, but to force every month to have a leap second. The IERS decision is then what the *sign* of the leap second shoul