Ian Batten <i...@batten.eu.org> wrote: > On 5 Jan 2012, at 23:49, Rob Seaman wrote: > > > > And I have reckoned the exact opposite. A leap hour or timezone shift > > per decade is way too frequent for people to put up with. > > Why not? They handle DST shifts every six months. What's the > difference for 99% of the population?
DST shifts are predictable, whereas one-off changes cause all sorts of pain. The most recent serious example was the North American change in 2007. One of the problems it exposed is that a lot of calendaring software is not robust in the face of changes to timezones. I said TZ changes are "easy to cope with if your timezone system is already handling random political fluctuations" which is currently the case in some parts of the world, but the rich world seems to be rigidifying - for instance, changing the rules in Europe requires more than two dozen countries to agree, so it's much less vulnerable to interference from under-employed politicians. So I don't think the timezone fudge will be as easy to implement in 600 years' time as recent history suggests. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ North FitzRoy, Sole: Westerly or northwesterly 4 or 5, occasionally 6 in Sole. Very rough becoming moderate or rough. Occasional rain or drizzle. Good, occasionally poor. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs