Slashdot Mirror


Vote To Eliminate Leap Seconds

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."

91 of 531 comments (clear)

  1. Wait by Monkeys!!! · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just hang on a sec....

    1. Re:Wait by therufus · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's about time!

      --
      You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    2. Re:Wait by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn the ITU member states and their sloppy seconds.

    3. Re:Wait by brian1078 · · Score: 2
  2. year 2612 bug anyone? by r00t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We call this "putting off the problem".

    We can ignore the problem then too. Eventually, morning and evening will be on different days. We might just gain or lose a whole day. Heck, we can ignore the problem forever. We'll be off by a year, then a decade...

    1. Re:year 2612 bug anyone? by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Funny

      We call this "putting off the problem".

      We can ignore the problem then too. Eventually, morning and evening will be on different days. We might just gain or lose a whole day. Heck, we can ignore the problem forever. We'll be off by a year, then a decade...

        Ok guys. We're in California, it's midday 26th June while I have snow falling on my face and I can't see shit because it's new moon.

      How many seconds was it already?
    2. Re:year 2612 bug anyone? by aevan · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, people in 2612 voted to put off the issue of 'leap hours' until 16412, where they propose to add a 'leap day', ostensibly in February.

    3. Re:year 2612 bug anyone? by Warg!+The+Orcs!! · · Score: 5, Funny

      16412 is also a leap year The extra day in February would be the ultra rare 30th of February. It's worth doing even if you have to wait 14405 years for it work.

      --
      Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
    4. Re:year 2612 bug anyone? by backwardMechanic · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's a long time to wait for a birthday for the poor kid born on Feb 30th!

    5. Re:year 2612 bug anyone? by Zarf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has always seemed to me that there should be computer epoch time and then you should have a conversion from that epoch into a time that make sense for the user. So, computer time units could be fixed to the vibrations of your favorite atom and human time could be fixed to the orbit and spin of your favorite planet. And all systems would do a conversion between the time systems at display. Different systems could do different conversions. Applications programmers could remain oblivious to the conversions if all time was stored in a universal fixed format independent of any particular planet, orbit, or galaxy.

      Basically, you compute what time of day it is based on your clock ticks and the orbit and spin of your planet. You don't need to model the entire orbital mechanics of your planet... if you think about it that's what all "time of day" systems do now... highly simplified models of the Earth in space. We know that the earth will be inside the zone of space we call "November" and we know it will be turned to the position we call 6am UTC when the clock ticks out this number or any number in this modulo. As we become more demanding of time and more exacting of the position of the planet in space we need to make more sophisticated orbital models... or allow for heuristic adjustments to existing look up table based models.

      Time as in time-space has nothing to do with any of this and it is passage of time in space that a computer should be worried about keeping inside itself... not where the sun is. If you want "where is the sun?" you should be use a conversion or algorithm to calculate "where is the sun?" and the "time" inside the computer should be seen as the number of clock cycles that computer has experienced. Using clock ticks alone, your computer can probably do a fair job at guessing at where the sun is... but that's not what computer time is about.

      Of course, these ideas neglect relativity. Eventually we'll have to deal with relativity and clock ticks. I suppose you would have to decide on an a set of arbitrary points in the cosmos and call their inertial frame of references "fixed" which you would use to compute temporal differentials via a kind of relativistic triangulation... say clocks in three star systems that transmit their time beats out to the universe and based on the time you read from each at your point in space you can triangulate your position and time-shift due to relativistic effects. But I think I may be getting a few centuries ahead of myself.

      And, it doesn't matter what I think anyway. It's not like anybody in a position to influence these decisions and ideas reads Slashdot. If you started now you could probably get all the digital clocks in the world to work on these principles in about a hundred years.

      --
      [signature]
  3. Re:Metric time? by daeley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The French tried Decimal time (aka French Revolutionary Time) for a while, although of course the Chinese invented it.

    Decimal time always reminds me of the scene in Metropolis with two clocks on the office wall -- a 24-hour clock and a 10-hour clock (the length of the workers' shifts).

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  4. Chrono-noobs! by hedgemage · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've been keeping time with my sundial and temple-top observatory the way Ra intended! Damn you kids and your new-fangled timekeeping.

  5. Re:Metric time? by CalicoDreams · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why use metric time when you can use Imperial time!!!

  6. Why not just make each second a little longer? by drgroove · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought of this issue years ago, and had actually sat down and done the math at one point... basically, to solve the time discrepancy, just slightly lengthen the second. Everything lines up. Of course, every book, piece of software, scientific instrument, medical equipment, ... well, basically everything in human civilization ... would need to be re-build, re-calibrated, re-programmed, re-manufactured, etc. If nothing else, we'd stimulate the living hell out of the world's economy.

    1. Re:Why not just make each second a little longer? by mbone · · Score: 5, Informative

      Of course, the real problem is that the rotation of the Earth is not constant (the leap seconds are mostly driven by fluid motions in the core).

      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.

    2. Re:Why not just make each second a little longer? by Mathinker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The first AC reply to your idea is correct but I have a feeling you still might not understand his point. The "leap seconds" which we are talking about are not, like the extra days in leap years, always added to the length of the day. Sometimes they are subtracted.

      I am not an expert, but the "exact second" calculation you want to make, averaged over a long enough period of time, seems to me to depend on the motions of every sizeable object in the Solar System and probably also (or maybe even more strongly) on fluid dynamics within the Earth's core. Both of these systems are almost certainly chaotic ones, and therefore probably not amenable to the solution you suggest (pre-calculation).

    3. Re:Why not just make each second a little longer? by justinlee37 · · 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.

    4. Re:Why not just make each second a little longer? by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      basically, to solve the time discrepancy, just slightly lengthen the second. Everything lines up.

      You would need to make the second variable length since the leap second is inserted at variable intervals to compensate for the non-constant slowing of the Earth's rotation.

    5. Re:Why not just make each second a little longer? by evanbd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If nothing else, we'd stimulate the living hell out of the world's economy.

      This is the broken window fallacy, nothing more.

      Besides, the value of units of measurement lies in their consistency. Changing the second is worse than leap years or leap seconds or leap hours, because any time someone needs a precise measurement, they turn to the second.

  7. Other way by professorfalcon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about going the other way... leap microseconds. Many times during the day. Then nobody will hardly notice.

    1. Re:Other way by 4D6963 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How about going the other way... leap microseconds. Many times during the day. Then nobody will hardly notice.

      Actually it sounds like a good idea. As someone else suggested, the difference due to leap seconds is so small that only atomic clocks are precise enough to need to take them into account. And since we're all synced on atomic clocks anyways we could just make that happen transparently upstream.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Other way by Manhigh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Space probes/satellites also are sensitive enough to rely on leap-seconds. If you dilute these by breaking them up throughout the day, figuring out ephemerides would be complicated.

      --
      "Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
  8. What would be wrong with by maroberts · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A leap minute every 10 years (or so)?

    One event every 10 years does not cause lots of disruption, and being a minute out of sync with solar time is not large enough to be a problem. You'd notice an hour's difference if you're in a northerly latitude and have Daylight Saving Time...

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:What would be wrong with by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is the same problem as the witching hour every year when switching to and from daylight savings time. The remedy for that is to ensure you don't schedule jobs for those hours, or get vendor assurance of what, exactly, will happen for jobs scheduled at the start, middle or end of the witching hours.


      Nope. cron, like all Unix services, runs to UTC and doesn't give a crap about daylight savings time.

    2. Re:What would be wrong with by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cron may think in UTC, but the crontab is in the system's local timezone.

      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 :Europe/Paris time zone, one Solaris box, one AIX box, one HPUX box and one RHEL box, with daily jobs scheduled at 01:00, 01:30 and 02:00. Let's call them job1, job2 and job3.
      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
  9. This is why... by MegaMahr · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is why I refuse to set the time on my VCR...

    --
    788652 = 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 19 x 1153
  10. A 'leap-hour' in about 600 years by niceone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, because the best way to to deal with a small problem is to put it off until it becomes a really big problem.

    1. Re:A 'leap-hour' in about 600 years by jmv · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who wants to bet that in 600 years, they'll decide to scrap the leap-hour and instead have a leap-day in 13800 years?

    2. Re:A 'leap-hour' in about 600 years by An+dochasac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suggested that everyone on the ITU committee should be asked to read David Ewing Duncan's book "Calendar - Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year." Ponder the fact that it has taken thousands of years of struggles, scientific advancement and setbacks to get human time synchronized with astronomical time. Great rifts developed in societies and wars were fought over the accurate calculation of time. (Check out the Irish/Roman/Orthodox rift over the calculation of Easter). Now with a single vote, the ITU can undo thousands of years of human progress just to avoid mini "y2k errors." Why not fix the code?

  11. Re:Metric time? by Amiralul · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or better, wake up at 256, eat lunch at 512 andd GOTO sleep at 1024.

  12. Please take some care with editing... by Mantle · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ... which nobody seems to believe is a good idea.



    Um... isn't the whole point of this article that some people think it's a good idea? TFS even says there is debate over whether it is a good or bad idea!

    1. Re:Please take some care with editing... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe he's talking about Mr Nobody.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Please take some care with editing... by Idontneed+Nobody · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's right, it is a good idea.

      --
      I know the trouble you've seen
    3. Re:Please take some care with editing... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um... isn't the whole point of this article that some people think it's a good idea? TFS even says there is debate over whether it is a good or bad idea!

      I suspect the people who think dispensing with leap seconds et al are people who don't care about the underlying astronomy that goes into how we calculate time.

      If you don't update your time to match how the actual configurations of orbits and the like works, then your equinoxes, solstices and other fun stuff stop lining up.

      Carried on long enough, Spring would happen in fall, but it would take while. :-P

      People tend to forget there's a real, underlying physical system which we have to make our reckoning of time match up to. It's not quite as arbitrary as people think. Our current mechanism of measuring time is based on centuries (actually, millennium) of measuring time and the orbits and the like that go into it.

      Leap seconds are just way of keeping it in sync.

      PI can't be made to be 3 either. =)

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  13. Yup. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think the problem with this is that the distance between the sun and the earth is not constant.

    But that's just the start:

    • The time it takes for the Earth to complete one cycle of rotation (i.e., an Earth day) is not constant.
    • The time it takes for the Earth to complete one cycle of translation (i.e., an Earth year) is not constant.

    How do we know they're not constant? Because we can measure the variation using atomic clocks, of course.

    1. Re:Yup. by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It gets worse than that, even.

      What is a year?

      Is it the time from perihelion to the next perihelion?
      Is it the time from zenith on the shortest day to zenith on the shortest day next year?
      Is it the time for when a star within our galaxy is in the same position again?
      Is it the time for when a star outside our galaxy is in the same position again?

      The earth's orbit rotates, and the solar system rotates, in a galaxy that rotates. And speculation is that the universe rotates too.

    2. Re:Yup. by aproposofwhat · · Score: 5, Funny
      Oblig. Python quote:

      Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
      And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
      That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
      A sun that is the source of all our power.
      The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
      Are moving at a million miles a day
      In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
      Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

      Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
      It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
      It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
      But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
      We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
      We go 'round every two hundred million years,
      And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
      In this amazing and expanding universe.

      The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
      In all of the directions it can whizz
      As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
      Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
      So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
      How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
      And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
      'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  14. 600 years? Who will remember? by damaki · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, this 600 years stuff is nice but who will remember to adjust clocks in 600 years? It's far better to have an instantaneous solution to the problem than a remote one.

    --
    Stupidity is the root of all evil.
  15. What a number of people don't realize... by swamp_ig · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The leap second is required because the earth's spin is slowing down in a complex, non-linear way.

    Changing the length of the second simply won't work, in a couple of hundred years we'll be right back to where we started again. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second for details.

    The leap hour is a daft idea, why change something that isn't broken, if a tad inconvenient.

    1. Re:What a number of people don't realize... by Detritus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone who has to do navigation, the driving force behind many of the improvements in timekeeping, would disagree with you. Units of measurement do not exist in a vacuum. They are invented to solve real problems.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  16. If it ain't broke... by mbone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... don't fix it.

    This is a bad idea, and my understanding is that it has not much chance of being adopted.

  17. Re:They have to add a leap something, sometime by evanbd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Leap years are to deal with correcting the length of the year, which isn't an integral number of days. Leap seconds are to deal with the fact that the length of a day changes slowly and at a variable rate. It's not the same problem at all.

  18. Leap hour ... WHY? by Karellen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why have a leap hour in 600 years time? Surely it would be easier for all countries to just change their local time offset to UTC by 1 hour. So, for example, instead of Pacific time being UTC-0800/UTC-0700, it would become UTC-0700/UTC-0600. (Or maybe 0900/0800)

    --
    Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
  19. Re:Metric time? by Slashidiot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yay, imperial time!

    The smallest unit is the "Moment", and then the "While" (or, less used, the "Whilst"). A while is about 14.4 moments. Then you have the "long while", which is 13.8 whiles, then the "time", and "long time"...

    For example, it took me a while and three moments to write this comment. I'm not a quick typer...

    --
    Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
  20. How about DST by Trogre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't really care what they do with leap seconds, but IMO their time would be better spent abolishing that routine-breaking, parent-killing, accident-causing abomination which is Daylight Savings Time.

    The only benefits I can see is slightly later barbecues in summer and a six-monthly reminder to check smoke detector batteries about the house.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:How about DST by julesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      DST is set by local governments. This is an entirely different thing, an international standards body messing around with time, instead.

      BTW: I'm of the opinion that it's not DST that should be abolished, but non-DST. Non-DST time is a good mathematical division of the day, centred equally around 12:00 (+- 30mins). Unfortunately, as a society, we seem to have decided to centre our actual lives around 13:00 instead. Switching permanently to DST would fix this.

    2. Re:How about DST by theCoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, as a society, we seem to have decided to centre our actual lives around 13:00 instead. Switching permanently to DST would fix this.

      Until our society decided to center our lives around 14:00.

      For the past couple summers, I've been protesting DST by simply not changing any of my clocks. It takes a bit to get used to, but once you learn to translate times, it works out. And as someone who doesn't mind getting up earlier in the morning (though I do like to sleep in when possible), it does help you realize how you are making better use of your day.

      But the number one thing I realized during my experiment is that DST by itself does nothing. The twice a year change is what makes it work. DST is really a trick (or a conspiracy, for the paranoid) to get people who would just as well sleep in to get up a little earlier. For some reason it was easier to get everyone to change their clocks than to convince everyone to start work an hour earlier. Maybe it's psychological -- getting up at 5 AM seems like a lot earlier than getting up at 6 AM. And going to be between 9 and 10 PM seems like a lot earlier than an adult should be going to bed.

      As much as I think DST is an abomination, it probably can't go away. People simply don't know how or won't want to adapt to getting up earlier by themselves.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    3. Re:How about DST by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its actually even worse.
      You might think of the "9-5" workday when saying that the center is 13:00.
      But in reality, its more like 15:00 (most people wont be a lot of time awake _before_ going to work, but lots of time after...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  21. This is a modern problem by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Before trains, nobody cared. Very few people care now.

    --
    Deleted
  22. Steer the Earth by SirStiff · · Score: 4, Funny

    We could just fire off some nukes every six months or year to control the orbital speed of the earth around the sun. Just keep tuning the orbit to our atomic clocks instead of vice-versa.

    1. Re:Steer the Earth by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We could just fire off some nukes every six months or year to control the orbital speed of the earth around the sun.

      Congratulations, you completely failed to understand the fundamental difference between a day and a year! A feat accomplished by few to this day!

      What defines the day is the rotation speed of the Earth around itself, not the orbital speed around the Sun. Besides, as some other people pointed out, this whole leap second thing is irregular, or if you prefer, one step forward, one step back, because the speed of rotation of the Earth varies slightly.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  23. Simple and accurate solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Run computers on TAI (International Atomic Time). Keep it constantly flowing, and never add or remove seconds, as per the definition. Then simply calculate UTC in software from a published leap offset between the two, which compensates for the leap seconds:

    UTC = TAI - leapseconds

    Then define all the timezones off of UTC as normal. All this basically does, is make the calculations for the timezones into a few hours plus or minus a few seconds. This makes a lot more sense, because then you actually have a fundamental time (TAI) which doesn't have discontinuities, but if you want to consider your astronomical orientation, you look at UTC or your local time. We don't need to redefine these types of time, because these already exist. We just need to use them more intelligently.

    1. Re:Simple and accurate solution by odyaws · · Score: 2, Informative

      Run computers on TAI (International Atomic Time). Keep it constantly flowing, and never add or remove seconds, as per the definition. Then simply calculate UTC in software from a published leap offset between the two, which compensates for the leap seconds:

      UTC = TAI - leapseconds

      Then define all the timezones off of UTC as normal.

      This is basically what they do in one area I have experience in where keeping precise track of time is important: spacecraft navigation. Ephemeris Time (not actually obsolete as the article claims) is generally referenced as the number of seconds since January 1st, 2000, 12:00:00 TT, is the "official" time that you work with when computing the positions of heavenly bodies (and spacecraft). The transformation from ET to UTC (the human-readable time) changes when leap seconds are added. When using UTC to compute the position of things, you use the history of leap seconds to convert correctly from UTC to ET, then use ET to figure out where things are.
      --
      Still trying to think of a clever sig...
    2. Re:Simple and accurate solution by evanbd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interestingly enough, that is exactly the relationship between GPS time and TAI. It's defined the other way, obviously, but GPS time does not have leap seconds, and the GPS signal includes the size of the correction needed so that receivers can display UTC time.

  24. Change time by Joebert · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think it would be soo much easier to throw away our clocks & base everything on the number of seconds since 00:00:00 January 1st 1979 from now on.

    Come on it's been nearly 2008 years since we had BC, it's time for a change !

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  25. Bam by multiferroic · · Score: 3, Funny

    Buffer overflow [R]estart [R]eboot [R]einstall

  26. While you are at it: "Down with DST!" by D4C5CE · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If one little (leap) second is worth all the fuss, where's the uproar to finally rid us of the dangerous practice of needlessly, senselessly changing almost all clocks in existence (in an age where every other gadget has one) twice a year by one whole whopping hour , with all the trouble that entails?

  27. Your post - Bollocks by janrinok · · Score: 5, Informative

    We used to have 120 pence to the pound in the UK

    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.

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    1. Re:Your post - Bollocks by PMBjornerud · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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. 12 is a nice number, but I will not support it for a standard until we grow another pair opposable thumbs.

      Young people today are nothing compared to what is to come. e-ink restuatant bills that calculate the price for everyone, and even takes into account if you had 2 drinks or 3.

      Give another 50 years, and what we call basic math will be indistinguishable from magic for large parts of the population.
      --
      I lost my sig.
    2. Re:Your post - Bollocks by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Give another 50 years, and what we call basic math will be indistinguishable from magic for large parts of the population.
      50 years? Wait no longer!

      From the article..

      Among these was Levenshulme's Tina Farrel, a 23-year-old who admitted "she had left school without a maths GCSE". She explained: "On one of my cards it said I had to find temperatures lower than -8. The numbers I uncovered were -6 and -7 so I thought I had won, and so did the woman in the shop. But when she scanned the card the machine said I hadn't.
      There are two people, Tina Farrel and a sales assistant that need to be darwinised.
    3. Re:Your post - Bollocks by Halcyonandon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or, a closed fist could represent 6.

      Or, why stop at 12? Just use your ten fingers to represent a binary number. Make sure you order the bits properly! We'd certainly end up a more dexterous population...

      --
      ^o^
    4. Re:Your post - Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      From Wikipedia:

      The person who carries out the glass attack may smash his or her glass on a hard surface, perhaps the side of the bar, and then grip the remaining base of the glass, with the broken shards protruding outwards, and then carry out the attack using arm strength to ram the broken glass in to the face of the victim.[citation needed] citation needed? What the hell?
    5. Re:Your post - Bollocks by squidfood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But the main thrust of your post was correct with regards to dividing sums of money easily.

      Back on topic, why do you think the Babylonians used Base 60 for things like minutes, seconds? Some cultures knew what they were doing...

    6. Re:Your post - Bollocks by ultranova · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are two people, Tina Farrel and a sales assistant that need to be darwinised.

      Personally, I think the people who judge other people fit to be "darwinised" - especially based on a page-long Web article - are the ones we could do without, rather than the people who's worst known flaw is that they can't count below zero.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  28. not quite oblig. Simpsons quote by weighn · · Score: 2, Funny

    sure, [eliminating leap seconds] may save a few lives... but thousands will be late

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  29. Synchronize your watches? by Televiper2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I bet it would be a considerable challenge to find 12 watches synchronized within 30 seconds of each other. So we're worried about seconds of mismatch between sundials and the only computer on earth that isn't connected to the internet? I agree with the article. Leave UTC time alone and synchronize to GPS time instead. The rest of the world will go on being happy having their watch within a couple minutes of the "official time."

    --
    New! Device Legs: These legs will help your poor OEM installed product escape any hamfistedness it may encounter. Ava
  30. Re:Don't have to. by SnowZero · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're off by a factor of 3600. It's "leap hours" that are being proposed; We already have leap seconds. Of course, I'm not sure the math from TFA makes too much sense anyway, as I don't recall having an average of 3 or 6 leap seconds every year.

  31. Re:Metric time? by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey, wait - seconds are base 60? What kind of bizarrity is this? No, minutes are base 60 - you can count seconds in any base you want as they're a unit.
  32. Re:South. by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I live at 5 degrees east. Thus, I know that because I'm at GMT+1, the sun will be exactly in the south at 12:40 PM. ...Except the exact time the meridian passes under the sun varies throughout the year since the Earth's orbit isn't circular.

    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/

  33. Corollary... by evilviper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Inherently, those who want to get rid of leap seconds also want to get rid of time zones (at least they indirectly do).

    Having our clocks NOT agreeing with astronomical time, completely eliminates all the benefits of time zones.

    Whether you actively think about it or not, our sense of direction is substantially driven by the combination of our clocks, and the Sun. We use it as a reference all the time (why do you think it's harder to find your way in a new area, when it's dark?). Even if there's no other defining features, there's still the Sun to tell us which way is North (or South), and our clocks give us a reference to relatively where the Sun should be. Subtly change someone's clocks, and you'll see them having a slightly more difficultly with their (otherwise good) sense of direction.

    Seems to me, the only argument here is that there are a few groups who _really_ just happen to need TAI time, but they see that it's just much easier to access sources of UTC time, and so want to redefine UTC (eliminating leap seconds) so that it is monotonic, and strictly corresponds with TAI at all times. Did I miss anything?

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  34. Re:Unix epoch and leap seconds by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and programmers can be given ample warning

    Since when has "ample warning" helped? <points at Y2K and the IPv4 address shortage>

    No, everyone leaves these problems until the last minute and then runs around trying to prevent the sky from falling in, even if they are known about years in advance.

  35. Re:Metric time? by junglee_iitk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    although of course the Chinese invented it.

    Chinese didn't "invent" decimal time. Phrases like "in the 1/10000 th part of a chand" and words like paramchand (not accurate transliteration; chand = second) etc., are very common in Sanskrit text. Add the fact that Decimal system itself was invented in India only means that Decimal time was "invented" in India.

    Why I am using double-quotes for "invented"? Because no one can invent time. As a human you want to divide time to keep track of it. And you can only do that using the numeral system you know! Indians knew decimal system so they divided it into factors of 10, Sumerians used sexagesimal system, so they divided it into 60.

    It is not the division that bears any importance in invention. It is the device which one can use to measure. If you don't have clocks to measure 1/10000 th part of second, it means nothing to write it down. Ancient Chinese are no different.
  36. Re:Metric time? by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 2, Informative

    You need to look into your history of science more closely. Joules, Volts, Watts, were all adopted by the metric system, not created by it.

  37. U-S-A! U-S-A! by Swampash · · Score: 2

    Whaddya know, the USA moves at a meeting in Texas that something scientific is just too hard to understand and should be dumbed down.

  38. Go For It by tidewaterblues · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As much as we play around with daylight savings time, more often then not local earth time and the relative position of the sun overhead don't match anyway. More importantly, it has been even longer since most people cared. The philosophical questions are now moot, the scientific and engineering questions have workarounds (no one measures anything serious in local time, they just convert to it), and all that is left is the question of whether or not we need to expend the effort to adjust our clocks every time they are just one second off from some fully imaginary standard.

    --


    ...En að Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað Er Nýr Dagur
  39. The problem isn't leap seconds by AB3A · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The question is what do you want to do with the time of day. Should it be astronomically based? This is not a trivial question.

    Many electric grids are required to be timed with accuracy of better than 10 milliseconds. Remote Telemetry Units need to record events with a time stamp that might mean something to an operations control center. The problem is what do you do with leap seconds?

    The POSIX standard time epoch doesn't include leap seconds. So you're left with a terrible morass of a problem. Do you do what the NTP deamon does, by slewing the clock at some known rate? The problem with that is that while events remain in sequence, the time between events is not accurate. Do you simply include a second 59th second? The problem there is that events will be recorded out of order and they can't be sorted back.

    And yet, many also have legal requirements to adhere to a UTC based time standard.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, the problem isn't the leap-second concept. The problem is our damnable entrenched software standards. We're trying to fix this problem by creating another.

    --
    Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
  40. Go for the Hindu Calender. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The basic idea is not to demand that the year be an integral number of days. The New Year will be "born" at varying times of the day. I clearly remember my mom cooking up the New Years feast and then waiting patiently for the new Year to be born, which would shift by about 6 hours every year. The Hindu calender will state the next new year, "Sowmiyan" or "Sadharanan" (there are 60 named years) will be born at 1:06 PM or 7:36AM or whatever. Typical South Indian New Year will begin on April 14 for about three years (like 7AM, 1PM, 7PM) and on April 15 (1AM) for a year and then the leap year in western calender will bring it back to April 14.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  41. Leap Seconds Ruin My Day by dunc78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, everytime we have a leap second, it really ruins my day. We need something much less noticeable. When was the last leap second again?

  42. Some numbers... by Cadre · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just use your ten fingers to represent a binary number. Make sure you order the bits properly! We'd certainly end up a more dexterous population...

    That would be an interesting transition period as people got used to indicating or recognizing the numbers 4 or 128...

    --
    All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
    1. Re:Some numbers... by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I count by placing my hands palm down just above a surface (very much like I'm about to start typing). Then I move my fingers up and down. If a finger is touching the surface, that's a 1 bit. If it is not, it's a 0. Lately I've been not using my thumbs, thus giving me one byte, conveniently broken into two nybbles for hex conversion.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Some numbers... by ultranova · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would be an interesting transition period as people got used to indicating or recognizing the numbers 4 or 128...

      Take one hundred
      Binary add thirty two
      Fingers say fuck you

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  43. Who here thinks its a good idea? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This makes UTC more useful for a very small number of people ... yet it will make it completely useless to most people in a decade or so.

    Legacy systems which need absolute time now and use UTC ... can deal with leap seconds.

    Legacy systems which need something resembling mean solar time now ... can't do without leap seconds.

    Why change it instead of making a new standard for new systems which need absolute time? It breaks nothing and accomplishes the same goal. I fail to see the logic in the present change, except for the fact that it will make some people a lot of money since huge amounts of systems will have to upgrade from UTC to whatever new standard emerges to take it place for use by most of us.

  44. Re:Metric time? by CarpetShark · · Score: 2

    Yay, imperial time!


    As in, "I find your lack of leapsecond-accuracy disturbing..."?
  45. Re:Metric time? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 4, Funny

    We used to have 120 pence to the pound in the UK.
    Hate to break it to you, but your mum was ripping you off on your pocket-money.
    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  46. 30 Febuary by daveewart · · Score: 2, Informative

    Historically, there have been some 30 Februarys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_February

    --
    "If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
  47. My Favorite Reason by Womens+Shoes · · Score: 3, Funny
    I think the best reason they gave for keeping leap seconds is:

    abandoning leap seconds would break sundials.


    Won't somebody think of the sundials!? I mean, c'mon! Sundials are cool and important! And what about Stonehenge?

    Actually, I'm in favor of keeping UT1 and TAI in sync. But not for the sundials :)
    --
    Does your significant other love shoes? ;)
  48. Obligatory Quote by scruffy · · Score: 2, Informative

    "It is inappropriate to require that a time represented as seconds since the Epoch precisely represent the number of seconds between the referenced time and the Epoch." - IEEE Standard 1003.1b-1993 (POSIX) Section B.2.2.2

  49. Seems Easy Enough to Solve by qazwart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep UTC with the leap second. Civilian time can use that.

    For UT1, eliminate the concept of hours, days, etc. Time will be told by the second only. Maybe even call it something else like a "chron". You can talk about hectochrons, millichrons, kilochrons, etc. In fact, start the counting of "chrons" at January 1, 1970.

    Now, if you use chrons, there is no more link between days or years, and no more leap seconds. Computer systems like GPS or space travel which get thrown off by leap seconds, but don't really depend upon the concept of "day" or "year", can use chrons. People who depend upon the astronomical time can use seconds and live with leap seconds. To each, their own. And, converting between the two units is quite really simple.

    The real silliness of the whole proposal is that these scientists actually think their decision will eliminate the leap second. Astronomers will simply ignore the whole thing and go back to GMT. So will all the governments which means all the atomic clocks will still use leap seconds. UTC will simply disappear, and we're back to square one.

  50. Wrong question by The+Monster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is a year?
    The real question isn't what is a year, but "what is a day". Measurements were taken of the length of the "mean solar day", which is the average time between noons, which itself varies over the course of a year due to the elliptical shape of the Earth's orbit. (Because we're closer to the Sun during the Northern Hemisphere winter, we're revolving faster but rotating at the same speed, so the time between true astronomical noons is slightly longer than in the summer.)

    That length was divided into 24 hours, each of which was subdivided into 60 minutes, then 60 seconds, and the exact time represented by a second was fixed. Then we found out that the length of a day is getting just a teeny bit longer, and the accumulated error amounts to a second over the course of a year or more. Or maybe the original measurements were off by that much.

    Whenever the astronomers determine that things are far enough out of whack, they declare a Leap Second to try to keep the average time of noon the same. They either add a 23:59:60 right before midnight on the last day of a quarter (so far only Dec 31 or Jun 30 have had this honor), or theoretically could omit 23:59:59 (but this has yet to happen).

    Otherwise, 12:00Z will no longer be mean astronomical noon at the Greenwich Observatory, which is pretty much the point of having a Prime Meridian in the first place.

    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  51. What about leap minutes? by p3d0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If leap seconds come too often, and leap hours allow the time to diverge too much, how about leap minutes? Official time doesn't deviate from solar time by much, and yet we only need one every hundred years or so.

    Of course, this doesn't fix the real problem: that the Earth's rotation is gradually slowing, so any system based on a foundation with a fixed number of fixed-length seconds will always become gradually more unwieldy.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  52. One thing's for sure by DaveM753 · · Score: 2, Informative

    No matter how this is resolved, in the end Microsoft will screw-up the time zone patch.