In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel R. Tobias" writes:
>Some of the proposals, however, seek to decouple civil time
>altogether from solar time, an unprecedented step which would
>possibly lead to day and night being completely reversed; any "leap
>hours" that prevented this would, if ever imp
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on 2005-01-23 09:00 UTC:
> >any "leap
> >hours" that prevented this would, if ever implemented, be even more
> >traumatic than leap seconds are now.
>
> they already happen here twice a year, and by now even
> Microsoft has gotten it right.
OBJECTION, your Time Lords!
UTC
Markus Kuhn scripsit:
> UTC currently certainly has *no* two 1-h leaps every year.
There seems to be persistent confusion on what is meant by the term
"leap hour". I understand it as a secular change to the various LCT offsets,
made either all at once (on 1 Jan 2600, say) or on an ad-lib basis.
On Thu 2005-01-20T14:59:18 -0700, Rob Seaman hath writ:
> Leap seconds are a perfectly workable mechanism. Systems
> that don't need time-of-day should use TAI. Systems that do need
> time-of-day often benefit from the 0.9s approximation to UT1 that UTC
> currently provides. Let's stop pretendin
