Steve Allen scripsit: > Yes. But I can't say whether they value the immediate practicality of > uniform time over the need to change all time zones by an hour 600 > years from now, and more and more often after that.
*sigh* Secular changes in time zones (if by "time zone" you mean "LCT - UTC", as I suppose) are something we already know how to handle, as they must be taken into account when determining historical UTC/GMT to LCT conversion. Indeed, some countries jigger the dates of their semiannual time changes annually, which is also a secular change in a small way. In addition, there is no reason why all the world's time zones must change in a synchronized way; ad hoc changes, as and when the problems become irritating, will be sufficient. Some jurisdictions might choose to change by half-hour offsets in only three centuries. The legal documents I have inspected are quite careful about this: they state things like lease expiration as "midnight, December 31, 2096, New York time", abstaining from attempting to prescribe the definition of "New York time" a century hence. -- Only do what only you can do. John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --Edsger W. Dijkstra's advice http://www.reutershealth.com to a student in search of a thesis http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
