On 2009-03-29_20:58:05, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2009-03-29 20:47, Paul E Condon wrote: >> On 2009-03-30_10:31:27, Alex Samad wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:49:22AM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: >>>> On 2009-03-29_16:19:28, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>>>> On Sunday 29 March 2009 17:07:54 Paul E Condon wrote: >>>>>> On 2009-03-29_09:59:49, John Hasler wrote: >>>>>>> Strong and Humble writes: >>>>>>>> Just wanted to know if it is possible to specify a time zone that has >>>>>>>> no winter time shift whole year? >>> [snip] >>> >>>> A few weeks ago, my Lenny system switched over from displaying time in MST >>>> (Mountain Standard Time) to MDT (Mountain Daylight Time). It did this, I >>>> believe, because the switch-over is mandated in the official locale coding >>>> for this region (Colorado). I would like to now how to take a pass on this >>>> switch-over part of the local locale. And how to do it ahead of time, so >>>> that for me, I don't have to find an unwanted task of undoing a unwanted >>>> change waiting on a Sunday morning. My version of what I think OP >>>> was asking for is a variant of locale that does not honor local >>>> mandates for >>>> switching to and from summer-time. It is very much a cultural thing. >>>> >>> Silly question why would you want to not follow local time ? >> I do follow local *standard* time, which is the local time for the west >> 105deg meridian. I live in Lafayette, Colorado, which is at 105deg.6' >> west. Local time here is 24 seconds delayed from local time at the >> central meridian of this zone, and about a minute later than the local >> time for Denver. That is close enough for me. I'm really not an >> extremist ;-) > > MDT is active for 7 months and 3 weeks, which means that it is the de > facto standard.
It will change. The 105 west meridian, the rising and setting of the Sun, are more lasting than a de-facto standard. I am content with what I am doing. It is really wierd raising this little scruple to something that it is not. I've learned how to effect a satisfactory solution to my problem. Now I'm willing to move on. The current standard is better described as a de-jure standard, IMHO. Didn't Congress pass a law on this issue? But there was no budget for going after schoff-laws, maybe. Or maybe the government is more sensible about some enforcement than some would expect. Or maybe some on this list misunderestimate, or whatever. -- Paul E Condon [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
