[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/
From: |
Zenaan Harkness |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/ |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Sep 2004 06:20:49 +1000 |
On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 19:32, David Allouche wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 20:12 -0400, Phil Frost wrote:
> > The difference between UTC
> > and GMT will never be more than 0.9s, but I believe there is still some
> > value in labeling the time with the correct timescale simply for the
> > sake of being correct.
>
> Since the date resolution is one second, both are equally correct.
>
> Are you just being pedantic or did I miss something?
So, attempting to be correct == being pedantic?
(Perhaps sometimes yes. This conversation has certainly clarified things
re gmt/utc for me, which I find worthwhile.)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] s/GMT/UTC/, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] s/GMT/UTC/, Jeremy Shaw, 2004/09/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] s/GMT/UTC/, Jan Hudec, 2004/09/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Miles Bader, 2004/09/07
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Jeremy Shaw, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Tom Lord, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Matthieu Moy, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Phil Frost, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Miles Bader, 2004/09/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, David Allouche, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/,
Zenaan Harkness <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: s/GMT/UTC/, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2004/09/10