Steve Allen scripsit:
> Yes. But I can't say whether they value the immediate practicality of
> uniform time over the need to change all time zones by an hour 600
> years from now, and more and more often after that.
*sigh*
Secular changes in time zones (if by "time zone" you mean "LCT - UTC",
as I suppose) are something we already know how to handle, as they must be
taken into account when determining historical UTC/GMT to LCT conversion.
Indeed, some countries jigger the dates of their semiannual time changes
annually, which is also a secular change in a small way.
In addition, there is no reason why all the world's time zones must
change in a synchronized way; ad hoc changes, as and when the problems
become irritating, will be sufficient. Some jurisdictions might choose
to change by half-hour offsets in only three centuries.
The legal documents I have inspected are quite careful about this: they
state things like lease expiration as "midnight, December 31, 2096, New
York time", abstaining from attempting to prescribe the definition of
"New York time" a century hence.
--
Only do what only you can do. John Cowan <jcowan_at_reutershealth.com>
--Edsger W. Dijkstra's advice http://www.reutershealth.com
to a student in search of a thesis http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Thu Feb 24 2005 - 08:43:33 PST