Re: Calendars (was: Re: leap second)
From: email@example.com (Kai Henningsen)
> Not everyone switched in 1752.
This is Pope Gregory's calendar reform, isn't it? I think it goes back a
century or more before 1752.
> Actually, it probably was a bad idea to use "leap" for both. Leap days are
> fixed by calendar design. Leap seconds are inserted or deleted (both are
> possible) after comparing the atomic clocks to astronomical observations,
> with no predictability at all. Two very different animals.
Speaking of predictability, isn't 2000 a leap year? The rule is different
for the turn of the century.
System time should be counted as the number of seconds _elapsed_ since New
Year's day 1970 (what Unix uses) or some other fixed point. These days it's
the number of seconds elapsed minus the leap seconds, which is sort of silly.
Bruce Perens K6BP Bruce@Debian.novare.net 510-215-3502
Finger bruce@master.Debian.org for PGP public key.
PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .