[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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. 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. MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
