email@example.com (Bruce Perens) wrote on 22.06.97 in <m0wfwIO-00J4hTC@golem.pixar.com>:
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org (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
Well, all the arguments have been made a dozen times over, and I'm still
firmly convinced that your attempt to put some nebulous philosophy over
useability is the silly one.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .