In message <fac59e84-151d-4902-be52-dc62a2f1c...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes: >On Dec 7, 2011, at 12:48 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>Nice way to ignore the fact that you chose to excise the one key >term "UTC" from Mills' quote. I focused on the UT1, because UTC could _conceiveably_ have relevance, whereas there is absolutely no way UT1 can come into play as a distinct timescale from UTC. >> Birthdays do not even get adjusted with/for timezones: You are >> born and die on civil time, > >Oh please. UT1 (~GMT ~UT ~Universal Time ~mean solar time >~time-of-day ~synodic time) is the basis of the entire time zone >system. Correct, but you don't use all of that for birthdays, because you don't record the timezone of birth. My son was born on march 31 in California on Mount Diablo Hospital. But at the time it was April 1st in Denmark. Yet his birthday is 31st of march, no matter where on the world he choses to celebrate it. Birthdays simply don't have timezone inforation attached to them, end of story. Consequently, if anybody claims that UT1 as distinct from UTC has any relevance for birthcertificates, I want to see the proof, because the claim is entirely nonsensical and counter intuitive in every way. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
