Re: [LEAPSECS] Equitable estoppel

From: John E Hein <jhein_at_timing.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:22:42 -0700

Peter Vince wrote at 20:15 +0000 on Dec 18, 2006:
> >For the moment, if leap seconds is to be abbandoned, I would favour the leap
> >minute instead.
>
> Is that not sitting on the fence, and ending up with the worst of
> both worlds? It is neither as precise as leap (micro, milli, or
> whole) seconds, nor as long term as leap hours. It would put off the
> updates for only a few tens of years, by which time experience of
> them would have been lost, and our descendants would end up with Y2K
> type problems.
>
> Peter Vince

One of the problems described on this list in the past is that of leap
tables in devices designed to operate over 10-20 years without
availability of leap second updates. Being able to rely on a table
that is good for that long makes the job of the designer much easier.

In this respect, leap minutes would be "better" than leap seconds.

Do not mistake this comment as an advocation of leap minutes.
Received on Mon Dec 18 2006 - 16:33:16 PST