>
> My comment was about "Israel disregard for International law", that was
> inappropriate.
Well, I don't seem to remember that remark in the original discussion.
Yes, it was made in the discussion you initiated about politics:
This was the first remark, that only had the word "Jerusalem" in
My comment was about "Israel disregard for International law", that was
inappropriate. If it has to do with computers or linux, then this is the
proper forum, else it doesn't. I didn't mean to say end the posix time
discussion, but end talking about Israel's place in politics.
Shaya
On Sun, 29
> On 28 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Yukhimets) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > > I'd expect that to be a problem for people in both parts of Jerusalem,
> > > > for
> > > > example.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am very sorry but I just don't th
On 28 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Yukhimets) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > I'd expect that to be a problem for people in both parts of Jerusalem, for
> > > example.
> > >
> >
> > I am very sorry but I just don't think that debian-devel is a prope
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Posix time includes leap-year-days, but does not include the finer
> > > resolution of leap-seconds. 21 leap-seconds (number 22 is coming up)
> > > have been added since New Years Day 1970 to keep clock time in sy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Yukhimets) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'd expect that to be a problem for people in both parts of Jerusalem, for
> > example.
> >
>
> I am very sorry but I just don't think that debian-devel is a proper place
> to share the (mis)understanding of the loca
[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 ba
On Jun 22, Bruce Perens wrote
> Speaking of predictability, isn't 2000 a leap year? The rule is different
> for the turn of the century.
2000/02/29 exists. (the rule is : every for years, but not every hundred
years, but every 400 years). AFAIK.
regards, andreas
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAIL
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
>
> Now, we know the length of a year/day better, and
> only 1 in for of those turn-of-century years are leap years. Maybe that
> will change again. And about the seconds: we (currently, prossibly always)
> si
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 a
> > Run "cal 9 1752" and tell me that.
[..]
> A more serious problem is that the current implementation doesn't allow
> for non-Christian date systems, of which there are several in active use.
> I'd expect that to be a problem for people in both parts of Jerusalem, for
> example.
>
> Does a
11 matches
Mail list logo
