At 06:50 PM 7/28/2005, Bjorn Gabrielsson wrote... >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike S) writes:> >> It will break if the system is built on the basis that UTC is within >> 0.9 seconds of UT1, which is how UTC is currently defined. > >Seems to be a minor concern.
Personal opinions don't count. To you it's minor, to someone else major. What's your point? >> The legal system in the US (and many other countries) is based on >> solar time, so it would break legal timekeeping. > >Legal time is often based on UTC. And often not. What's your point? >> There may be systems dealing with satellite tracking/orbit >> maintenance which might break. There are astronomical systems which >> would break. > >Thats a gliding scale... if system A breaks at DUT1 of 1.0seconds >B & C might die at 5 and 10 seconds, giving plenty of time to patch >the systems. System A does seem to live on the edge already, maybe a >good candidate to patch earlier... You are able to assuredly identify which systems will fail, and when? It must be nice to have omniscience. >> I don't know what else, >> but the point is, neither do the people proposing to break UTC with >> short warning and little consultation. > >Leapseconds are known with short warning... Maybe the astronomers have >not been following the lengthy discussions among the real timekeepers of >today. Whos fault is that? Leap seconds are known with about 6 months warning. UTC has been well defined for over 30 years. Like it or not, "time" is astronomical, both historically and in actual civil use. ITYM "self-proclaimed timekeepers." It is up to the organization tasked with a duty to carry out that task responsibly. Failing to notify/seek input from obviously affected parties is irresponsible. >"Break UTC" - or simplify/improve UTC. How would UTC be improved? It would be exactly parallel with TAI, which is already available for use. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list time-nuts@febo.com https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
