Re: [Xlog-discussion] GMT vs UTC

[Leigh L. Klotz, Jr.]

Interestingly, I've read that they're thinking of abandoning UTC and 
keeping only UT.  As you can imagine, there's quite a bit of 
bureaucratic wrangling and discussion going on.  Here's one reference: 
http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/onlinebib.html

The difference between the UTC and UT is due to the use of "leap 
seconds" to align the UTC time with the gradual slowing of Earth's 
spinning. With the increased reliance on time synchronization, the leap 
second events are being seen as potential hazards, much like mini-Y2K 
events.  One worst-case scenario is an electrical utility company 
mistakenly generating out of phase, causing a partial or total 
electrical grid collapse.  While such an event seems unlikely, the ITU 
member nations have begun to debate the advisability of creating the 
chances for them to occur. 

One proposal is to postpone the next leap second until it becomes a 
leap-minute, in a few hundred years.  Another is to abandon UTC 
entirely.  Maybe we should stick with the BBC and take the long view...

Leigh/WA5ZNU

Daniel Schlieper wrote:
> Dear Xlog developers,
>
> would it be possible to change the time labels from GMT to UTC? Or is 
> there a reason for using GMT?
>
> GMT is so old fashioned. It doesn't even exist anymore! Only the BBC 
> insist on using the abbreviation. For political reasons, I believe. But in 
> reality, they use UTC, too.
>
> You might think, what the heck, it makes no difference, but that is not 
> true. Using UTC consitently would help newcomers to avoid confusion. There 
> is also a point in using modern (ie not 19th century) terminology. Having 
> said that, here in Britain, some people still measure their weight using 
> stones...
>
> 73 de Daniel M0ERA, Oxted, Surrey.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xlog-discussion mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/xlog-discussion
>