Re: ITC copped out on UTC again

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Abolishing leap seconds kicks the can down the road as far as this is
> concerned.  And while it's tempting to push this sort of decision down
> on future generations, they're not going to love us for it in a couple
> of hundred years if they need to adjust by an hour to get solar time in
> sync with UTC again.

Yes.

> Of course, you can talk about this and say that it's a theoretical
> nicety, but it will also break the tie between TAI and UTC at that
> stage, which invalidates most of Phillip's arguments to some degree or
> other - not to a degree that affects us here and now, but that will
> affect humankind in the future.

No, a timezone change (or rather a series of timezone changes) doesn't
affect the relationship between UTC and TAI. The changes don't even need
global co-ordination.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@xxxxxxxx>  http://dotat.at/
Sole, Lundy, Fastnet, Irish Sea, Shannon: West 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8
later in Irish Sea. Moderate or rough, occasionally very rough except in Lundy
and Irish Sea. Occasional rain or drizzle. Good, occasionally poor.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]