John Cowan wrote:
If the Government of Venezuela or any other country changes its mind about what the time zone in that country is, no one else in the world has a thing to say about it. There is and can be no contract, and so non-repudiation remains irrelevant.
International treaties have the force of law in the U.S., I believe, and presumably in other countries as well. What is NAFTA, but a contract between nations? So the assertion is that countries from Sudan to Bhutan can move their timezones around with gleeful abandon, but are somehow restricted by the ITU from issuing their own leap seconds? Otherwise, what then is the point of the ITU?
Civil time is the creation of civil authority, and has exactly as much relationship to mean solar time (or universal time, for that matter) as the civil authority thinks convenient.
The entire stoopid argument for ditching mean solar time centers on seeking lock step synchronization - strangely, precisely because we're deemed too craven to keep our clocks set properly. Here you argue the opposite - that no possible ties can (or should?) bind our august authorities.
"Civil time" is also a term used in multiple ways in this discussion. Your meaning here is that each country (or even municipality?) can have a distinct system of time. Clearly something underlies these diverse local conventions. This common international standard, accessible to all, is what has been the focus of much of our discussions.
Rob _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
