Re: [LEAPSECS] interoperability

From: Rob Seaman <seaman_at_noao.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:21:18 -0700

On Jan 9, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> You yourself defined stage one as "TAI with some constant offset"
> yourself, you can't change definition in the middle of the discussion.

I was attempting to describe your position. In point of fact, I
agree with Tom Van Baak:

>> You cannot divide timekeeping, time dissemination, into neat stages.

What we can do, however, is layer our standards upon a coherent
vision of the requirements placed on timekeeping by the wide range of
activities engaged in by humanity. Talking to other humans aside
from the 114 members of this list might be a good first step.

> I've never been in favour of the leap-hour proposal as other than a
> political instrument to be abandonned well before the clock strikes.

Just wanted to re-emphasize your position. Considering that you and
I, the polar extremes of this issue, both reject the notion of leap
hours, perhaps we can find something else to talk about?

> Not adjusting the clock is less disruptive than doing so, no matter
> which half of the year.

Won't repeat my arguments a third time.

> They have 600 years to find a solution and an implementation date
> for it.

Who is this "they" you're talking about? We're discussing changing a
standard that will be in effect now, then, and all times in between.
Our descendants won't be appreciably smarter than we are, and they
won't have access to insights regarding fundamental public
timekeeping issues that we don't have. If we cannot posit a solution
more creative than "forget the whole thing" (which I continue to
assert is not an option, outside of extremely dark post-apocalyptic
science fiction tales) then neither will they.

Rob
Received on Mon Jan 09 2006 - 08:21:50 PST