On Aug 29, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I thought you were busy with your analysis document ?
Let's see...rummage, rummage...what did I say? Ah, yes:
I'm going to refrain from commenting on the "best" choices from the decision tree until it nears completion.
I don't see that I've violated that intent. I stated that consensus was better than artificial compromise. And my message acknowledged that socially pragmatic choices such as you advocate might indeed be appropriate - if in service of appropriate ends. I doubt it came as a surprise to anyone that I still support the notion that civil time should be a representation - of some sort - of solar time. Nowhere in that message did I advocate one solution over another of how to bring this about. I did find it striking, however, that the public confusion being discussed was completely unconnected to issues of precision timekeeping such as leap seconds. Rather, the very definition of civil time was misunderstood, whether by Microsoft or by somebody else. If the solution to the perceived problem of leap seconds is to eradicate them, is the solution to the problem of confusion caused by Daylight Saving Time to convince the politicians to vote against it? We'd have more luck legislating against the transfer of angular momentum from the Earth to the Moon... Rob Seaman National Optical Astronomy Observatory