Re: CHAT: Timezones was The English/French counting system

Ian Spackman scripsit:

> This really has little to do with cultural imperialism; Universal Time was
> defined as GMT by an *international* conference in the 1890s.  There was
> only one vote against (Dominica) and one abstention (France).  As
> international agreements go, not bad.  I admit I don't know how many
> countries sent representatives.
The International Meridian Conference of 1884 was called at the
instance of the U.S. and held in Washington: delegates were sent by
Austria-Hungary, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, France, Germany,
Great Britain, Guatemala, Hawaii (then independent), Italy, Japan,
Liberia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Paraguay, Russia, (El) Salvador,
San Domingo (i.e. the Dominican Republic), Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, the U.S., and Venezuela.

Seven resolutions were passed, to the following effect:

1) agreeing that a universal prime meridian was a Good Thing (unanimous)

2) setting the Greenwich meridian as that prime meridian (San Domingo
opposed, France and Brazil abstaining)

3) counting longitude two ways, east and west, from the Greenwich
meridian to the 180 degree line (Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland opposed, Austria-Hungary, Brazil, France, Germany, San
Domingo, Turkey abstaining)

4) adopting universal time "for all purposes for which it may be found
convenient", but still allowing local and standard times (Germany,
San Domingo abstaining)

5) fixing the universal day to start at Greenwich mean midnight and to
use the 24-hour clock (Austria-Hungary, Spain opposed, France, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, San Domingo, Sweden, Switzerland abstaining)

6) hoping that all astronomical and nautical days would be changed to
begin at midnight rather than noon (unanimous; didn't happen until 1928)

7) hoping that decimal time and angle measurement would be studied
further by another conference and eventually adopted "in all cases in
which it presents real advantages" (Germany, Guatemala, Sweden abstaining;
never happened)

> Myself, I've long been in favour of using GMT no matter where one is in the
> world (including when I lived in places other than Britain!).  To my mind
> it simplifies things more than it complicates them; but then I suppose
> I've always been in favour of things that make travel, communication, etc.
> easier.
One difficulty I've found is that many people in Britain think that "GMT"
is the name of Britain's local time, and speak of things happening at
8 P.M. GMT when what they mean is BST = GMT + 1!

My view is that each of us, or at least us Internet users who communicate
instantly or nearly so with people around the world, should learn our
time offset(s) by heart so that we can readily convert to and from GMT.

--
Do what you will,                       John Cowan
   this Life's a Fiction                jcowan@reutershealth.com
And is made up of                       http://www.reutershealth.com
   Contradiction.  --William Blake      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Replies