Vote To Eliminate Leap Seconds 531
Mortimer.CA writes "As discussed on Slashdot previously, there is a proposal to remove leap seconds from UTC (nee 'Greenwich' time). It will be put to a vote to ITU member states during 2008, and if 70% agree, the leap second will be eliminated by 2013. There is some debate as to whether this change is a good or bad idea. The proposal calls for a 'leap-hour' in about 600 years, which nobody seems to believe is a good idea. One philosophical point opponents make is that the 'official' time on Earth should match the time of the sun and heavens."
Yup. (Score:2, Informative)
But that's just the start:
How do we know they're not constant? Because we can measure the variation using atomic clocks, of course.
Re:Why not just make each second a little longer? (Score:5, Informative)
Originally, back in the 1960's, instead of the leap seconds, they (the BIH at the time) adjusted the rate of the UTC seconds with respect to TAI. This was widely viewed as not a good thing once it was tried and was dropped, IIRC in 1972.
Re:They have to add a leap something, sometime (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why not just make each second a little longer? (Score:2, Informative)
we'd stimulate the living hell out of the world's economy.
But that wouldn't stimulate it at all. The opportunity costs would be massive. See the "broken window" fallacy.
Your post - Bollocks (Score:5, Informative)
There were 240 pence to the old (pre-decimalisation) pound, comprised of 20 shillings each worth 12 (old) pence. Do you remember guineas, crowns, half-crowns, shillings, tanners (6-penny piece), threepenny bit, pennies, half-pennies, farthings (a quarter penny)? I do. I suspect that I am quite a bit older than you and I cannot ever remember there being 120 pence to the pound. So either please provide a citation or confess that you are mistaken/talking bollocks. :-)
But the main thrust of your post was correct with regards to dividing sums of money easily. Or at least it was until the education system decided that mathematics and mental arithmetic were not the most important subjects in life. I'm not sure how some of today's young people could cope with such problems.
Re:Don't have to. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What would be wrong with (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. cron, like all Unix services, runs to UTC and doesn't give a crap about daylight savings time.
Re:Metric time? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:South. (Score:3, Informative)
Don't get me wrong - I think removing the leap second is just silly but your point is rather bogus.
See http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ [timeanddate.com]
Re:Metric time? (Score:3, Informative)
No edit needed (Score:1, Informative)
30 Febuary (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Simple and accurate solution (Score:3, Informative)
UTC = TAI - leapseconds
Then define all the timezones off of UTC as normal.
Obligatory Quote (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Simple and accurate solution (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Other way (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What would be wrong with (Score:5, Informative)
Worse, different systems have different implementations. There's bsd, sysv and vixie's implementations, plus numerous variations, and all seem to do their own stuff.
An example: You have four boxes located in the
Which of the three jobs will run on each box on March 30, 2008?
Which of the three jobs will run on each box on October 26, 2008?
Which of the three jobs will run twice on October 26, 2008?
If anyone (except perhaps Arthur D. Olson) can answer that without investigating, I'd be very surprised.
Sometimes the vendors themselves can't say for sure, due to the time adjustment occurring in a different process, and depending on availability of interrupts and CPU time on the system, the cron interrupt may see either the old time or the new time when it wakes. One of the above vendors thus recommends that jobs scheduled for the start/end of the witching hour are moved one minute outside it.
Anyhow, the parent to your post deserves to have the "+1 Informative" stripped, because it's plain misinformation.
Regards,
--
*Art
One thing's for sure (Score:3, Informative)