Clive D.W. Feather scripsit:
The problem here is Microsoft, whose software appears to believe that the
current LCT here is GMT Daylight Time.
How thoroughly stupid. Nevertheless, when I talked to the teleconference
organizer, it became thoroughly clear that for him GMT meant the time
on my
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John.Cowan writes:
Clive D.W. Feather scripsit:
The problem here is Microsoft, whose software appears to believe that the
current LCT here is GMT Daylight Time.
How thoroughly stupid. Nevertheless, when I talked to the teleconference
organizer, it became
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
It is not unrelated to why some of us think that changing the
definition of UTC is infinitely more possible than changing the
rest of the worlds educational level with regards to timekeeping.
Not unrelated, simply
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
Rob Seaman scripsit:
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.
I think
John.Cowan said:
Rather, the very definition of
civil time was misunderstood, whether by Microsoft or by somebody
else.
I think this greatly overstates the case.
Exactly.
There was a mere misapplication
of labels involved, both in the case of the conference leader (who believes
that the
Rob Seaman said:
The problem here is Microsoft, whose software appears to believe
that the current LCT here is GMT Daylight Time.
The case has been repeatedly made that since the world tolerates
large excursions in civil time such as caused by the varying local
Daylight Saving Time policies,
On Aug 29, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
And, by the way, the GMT standard is *NOT* synonymous with UTC;
it is (IIRC) UT1.
The original UTC standard (i.e., CCIR 460-4) stated:
GMT may be regarded as the general equivalent of UT.
UT1 and UTC are both representations of
For those who were not on the recipient list (I was not) the most
recent leap seconds news is the public release of a letter from P.K.
Seidelmann which was sent in July. It was posted here:
http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/mail/igsmail/2005/msg00114.html
--
Steve Allen [EMAIL
