On Friday, January 9, 2004, at 19:55:23 [UTC+0100] (Friday, January 9, 2004 19:55 my local time) Mrten wrote:
> GMT is a perfectly valid name for a timezone, its just synonym for UTC. It seems to be the synonym, but in fact, it is not. A quote from NIST site: ,------ [ http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/world.html ] | With the advent of highly accurate atomic clocks, scientists and | technologists recognized the inadequacy of timekeeping based on the motion | of the Earth, which fluctuates in rate by a few thousandths of a second a | day. The redefinition of the second in 1967 had provided an excellent | reference for more accurate measurement of time intervals, but attempts to | couple GMT (based on the Earth's motion) and this new definition proved to | be highly unsatisfactory. A compromise time scale was eventually devised, | and on January 1, 1972, the new Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) became | effective internationally. `---------- BTW, I use atomic clock which participates in UTC timescale. -- Best regards, Zygmunt Wereszczynski (Using The Bat! v2.03 Beta/31 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4) ________________________________________________________ http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
