Re: [LEAPSECS] Schreiver AFB warns about leapsec

From: Francois Meyer <fmeyer_at_obs-besancon.fr>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:53:29 +0000 (UTC)

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Tom Van Baak wrote:

> > The same paradigm suggests a new definition of UTC,
> > strengthening its link to UT1 down to 0.09s, and
> > switching from leap seconds to leap tenths of a
> > second. This aims at making leap intervals a rule
> > and not an exception. Tens of a second are as easy
> > (or as difficult) to implement as leap seconds,
> > their instantaneous impact is 10 times lower and
> > since only automated systems are really affected,
> > the increased frequency of their occurrence is not
> > an issue.
>
> Keeping to metric system conventions

I support this, introducing leap 1/8ths of a second
would hardly clarify the situation.

> and following the humor of the above suggestion

It was more a provocation than a joke in my mind,
but I am certainly not against pouring some humor in
the discussion...

> While you're at it let's change when leaps occur; not
> just at 23:59:59
> ...

I second this too, 23:59:59 is the worst time to
insert a leap second, since failing to implement it
leaves you with the wrong day (month and possibly
year) at the very second it occurs.

-- Francois Meyer
Tel : (+33) 3 81 66 69 27 Fax : 3 81 66 69 44
Observatoire de Besancon - BP1615 - 25010 Besancon cedex - FRANCE
**** Université de Franche-Comté ****** CNRS UMR 6091 *****
Received on Tue Dec 20 2005 - 14:19:05 PST