Re: [LEAPSECS] The opportunity of leap seconds

From: Rob Seaman <seaman_at_noao.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 15:33:21 -0700

On Jan 7, 2006, at 11:37 AM, John Cowan wrote:

>> Whether we choose to bleed off the daily accumulating milliseconds
>> one second or 3600 at a time, bleed them we must...and even people
>> who loathe the very notion of leap seconds admit this.
>
> NO, I DON'T ADMIT THAT. On the contrary, I deny it, flatly,
> roundly, and absolutely.

Alternately, you could read what I said. I wasn't claiming all such
people would admit it (though, of course, they should). I was
pointing out that the ITU already felt obligated to admit it.


We've long since devolved into a Monty Python sketch:

        Owner: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that
bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart
with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

        Mr. Praline: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put
four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

        Owner: No no! 'E's pining!

        Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no
more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed
'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic
processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket,
'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined
the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!


> The leap-hour proposal can be read as either (a) a serious proposal
> to inject an hour into UTC at some future date, or (b) a cynical
> proposal to abandon leap seconds and not replace them.
>
> I think (a) is just as foolish as leap seconds, if not more so.

Glad to hear you say it.


> The computerniks of the world already know how to handle such
> things, so future migrations will not be a problem.

Thanks! I needed a good chuckle :-)
Received on Sat Jan 07 2006 - 14:33:37 PST