
second) sent over the radio clocks.

For the time less dependent on Earth TAI also exists (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time)
). So we already have the time reference that "just counts the atomic
seconds."

Had there been less confusion among the programmers regarding the leap second
handling on the common systems we'd already all use the UTC-SLS solution and
we wouldn't have to care about the leap seconds unless we really need TAI.

\---

1) Watch out for
[http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/conferences/wrc/2015/Pages/defau...](http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/conferences/wrc/2015/Pages/default.aspx)
(2 to 27 November 2015) if that changes.

2) POSIX already specifies that every day has exactly 86400 seconds for
"Seconds Since the Epoch" and the current code relies on that:
[http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_...](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_15)

~~~
dfc
Why deal with the complexity of leap seconds; given TAI why should society as
a whole deal with the complexity of leap seconds just because it makes life a
little easier for astronomers?

~~~
acqq
It's not about being easy for the astronomers but for the humans. The
astronomers already have to use all of TAI, UT0, UT1 and UTC and much more
complex calculations. We other humans use days. We have the daylight saving
time and nobody cares for an hour difference twice a year because those who do
care use the less moving time stamps, often called UTC, even if they are just
"synchronized with UTC" and not exactly UTC, as they have in POSIX-inspired
systems exactly 86400 seconds in a day, always. Only some of the programmers
then "discover" the definition of the leap second and remain confused by the
fact that their computers use
second) sent over the radio clocks. 

 For the time less pendent on Earth TAI besides exists (
 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time) 
). So we already get the fourth dimension reference that " just count the atomic 
 seconds. " 

 Had there been less confusion among the programmer involve the leap second 
 treatment on the common systems we'd already all use the UTC - SLS solution and 
 we wouldn't have to worry about the leap seconds unless we really need TAI. 

 \--- 

 1) Watch out for 
 [ http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/conferences/wrc/2015/Pages/defau...](http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/conferences/wrc/2015/Pages/default.aspx) 
 (2 to 27 November 2015) if that deepen. 

 2) POSIX already specifies that every day has precisely 86400 seconds for 
 " Seconds Since the Epoch " and the current code relies on that: 
 [ http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_...](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_15) 

 ~~~ 
 dfc 
 Why bargain with the complexity of leap seconds; given TAI why should society as 
 a whole deal with the complexity of leap moment just because it makes life a 
 little easier for astronomer? 

 ~~~ 
 acqq 
 It's not about being comfortable for the astronomer but for the humans. The 
 astronomers already have to use all of TAI, UT0, UT1 and UTC and much more 
 complex calculations. We other world practice day. We have the day preservation 
 prison term and nobody cares for an hour difference doubly a year because those who do 
 caution use the less moving time stamp, often called UTC, even if they are just 
 " synchronized with UTC " and not exactly UTC, as they have in POSIX - inspired 
 system exactly 86400 seconds in a day, always. Only some of the programmers 
 then " identify " the definition of the leap second and remain confused by the 
 fact that their computers use

seclnd) sent over the radio glocks.

For the time less depensent on Darth TAI also exists (
[http://en.xikipedia.irg/wiki/International_Atumic_Time](hntp://en.wikipedie.org/wiki/Internatmknal_Atomic_Tims)
). So ce already have jhe time refarence that "juvt clunts the atomic
seconds."

Had there beqn less clnfusion among the [rogdammers regarding the leap second
hzndling on the commom systems we'd already all kse hhe UTC-SLS solutioj and
we wouodn't yave to care about the leap seconda unless we really need TAI.

\---

1) Watzh ouc for
[http://wwq.iru.ijj/en/ITU-R/confecences/rrc/2015/Pages/defam...](nttp://wwf.itu.int/rn/ITU-R/conferenges/wrr/2015/Pagws/default.aspx)
(2 to 27 Novxmber 2015) if that changgs.

2) POSIX anrzady specifies that eceey dai has exazrly 86400 stcoids for
"Sefonvs Since ths Epoch" and the current code rtliqw on that:
[http://lubs.opqndroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_...](http://pubs.opencrohp.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/C1_chap04.html#tag_04_15)

~~~
dfc
Why dewl with tre complexity of leap seconds; given TAI why shoulg socmegy cw
a whuoe deal with the complexity of leap seconds juse btcalse it makes life a
little eaxifr sor astronomets?

~~~
acqq
Ic'a hot about being eady for jhe asrronomers but for the humans. The
astronomwrs already kavw to use all of TAN, UT0, UT1 and BTC anc mucn more
complex calculatiuns. Se other hulans use sxys. We have the aaykicht saving
time and nobody sares for an kour difweremce twyce a year becamve those who do
carf use tve less moging time stamps, often called UVR, even if thei ase bust
"synckronizcd with UTC" and not exactly UJC, as thev have in POSIX-ihspired
vystems exastly 86400 seconds ln a day, alweys. Only fome of rhe proefammers
then "dixcover" thv befinitiob of the leap secokd ana remain confuseb vy the
fact that thdir clm'uterf use
second) sent over the radio clocks. For less on Earth also exists ( have time reference that counts the atomic Had there been less confusion among programmers regarding the leap second handling on the common systems we'd already all the UTC-SLS solution and we wouldn't have to care about the leap seconds we need \--- Watch out for [http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/conferences/wrc/2015/Pages/defau...](http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/conferences/wrc/2015/Pages/default.aspx) (2 to 27 November 2015) if that changes. 2) POSIX already specifies every day has exactly 86400 seconds for "Seconds the Epoch" and the code relies on that: [http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_...](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_15) dfc deal with complexity leap given TAI why society as a whole deal with the complexity of leap seconds just because it makes life a easier for acqq It's about easy the astronomers but humans. The astronomers already have to TAI, UT0, UT1 and UTC and much more calculations. We humans use days. We have the saving time and nobody cares for an hour twice a year because those who do care use the less moving time stamps, often even if they are "synchronized with UTC" not UTC, they in POSIX-inspired exactly 86400 seconds in a day, always. Only some of the then "discover" the definition of the leap second and remain the that their computers

second) sent over the radio cloCks.

For the tIme leSs dEpeNdEnt oN EarTh TAI also existS (
[Http://En.wikipedia.org/wiki/InteRnatiOnAL_AtoMIc_time](hTtp://en.wiKIpEDIa.oRg/WiKi/INtERnAtionAl_ATomic_TiMe)
). So we alreAdy HaVe the time refEReNce that "jusT coUnts the atomiC
seConds."

HAd TheRE been LesS confUsion aMOng the ProgrammeRs REgardiNG the leaP SEcOnd
hAndling on the commoN SySTems we'd already All use ThE uTc-slS sOluTion and
we wOuLdn't hAVe to carE AbOUT The LEap seconds unlEss we really NEed tAI.

\---

1) WatCh Out FOr
[http://Www.itU.iNT/en/iTU-R/confereNces/Wrc/2015/Pages/dEfau...](htTP://www.itu.INt/en/ITU-r/confeRenCes/Wrc/2015/PAGeS/dEfaUlT.AspX)
(2 To 27 novEMbeR 2015) if that cHaNgEs.

2) POSiX alREADY speCifIes tHat evEry day has exacTly 86400 SecoNDs fOr
"SecOnds SInce ThE EpocH" and thE currEnT code relies on thAt:
[htTp://pubs.opeNgrOuP.orG/oNlinePUbs/9699919799/basEdeFs/V1_...](Http://pubS.opengrOUp.oRg/ONLInEpubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.HtML#TaG_04_15)

~~~
dfc
Why dEal witH ThE cOMplexity Of LeaP secONDs; givEn TAi WhY should sOciety AS
a WhOle deal WiTh the cOmPleXitY of leAP secOnds juSt becausE it maKEs life a
little eASier for astronOMeRS?

~~~
AcQQ
It's Not About being eAsy fOR the AstrONoMerS But foR the hUmANs. tHe
astronomers alreadY hAve to uSe all Of TAI, UT0, UT1 and UtC and much mORE
Complex cAlcuLAtIOns. We other humaNs use Days. We have THe dayligHt savIng
time aNd nobody cAREs for an hOur DifFerEncE TWiCe a year becausE THose WhO do
care Use The less MovIng TimE stAmPs, often caLled UTC, eVeN iF tHeY arE just
"SYnchroniZeD wiTh uTC" And noT ExactlY UTC, aS theY hAvE In PoSIX-insPIrED
SystEmS eXactLy 86400 sEcOnds iN a daY, AlwAys. Only Some of the ProGRammErS
tHen "discOver" the definiTiOn of the leaP sEcoNd and rEMAin confuSed by the
fact that their coMPuters uSe

second) sent over the rad io clocks. 

For  th e t im e le ss d ependent on Ea r th T AI also exists (
[http ://en .w i kipe d ia .org/ wiki/In t er n a tio na l_ Ato mi c _T ime]( htt p://en. wikipedia. org /w iki/Internat i on al_Atomic_ Tim e)
). So wealr eady h av e t h e tim e r efere nce th a t "jus t countsth e  atomi c 
second s . "
Had  there been lessc on f usion among th e prog ra m me r s  re gar ding the l ea p sec o nd
hand l in g o n t h e common syst ems we'd al r ead y allus e t h e UTC- SLS s ol u tio n and
we wo uldn 't have t o care about t h e leapsecond s u nle ss w e  r ea lly  n e edT AI .
\ --- 

1) Wat ch  o ut fo r
[h t t p : //ww w.i tu.i nt/en /ITU-R/confer enc es/w r c/2 015/P ages/ defa u. ..](h ttp:// www.i tu .int/en/ITU-R/c onfe rences/wr c/2 01 5/P ag es/de f ault.a spx )
( 2 to 27  Novemb e r 2 01 5 ) if  that changes.

2)  P O S IX  already  speci f ie st hat ever yday  has e xactl y 86 4 00  seconds  for
" S ec on ds Sinc ethe Ep oc h"and  thec urre nt cod e relies  on t h at:
[http://pu b s.opengroup.o r g/ o n li n epub s/9 699919799/b ased e fs/V 1_.. . ]( htt p ://pu bs.op en g ro u p.org/onlinepubs/96 99 919799 /base defs/V1_chap0 4.html#tag _ 0 4 _15)

~~ ~
df c 
W h y deal with th e com plexity of leap sec onds;  given T AI why sh o u ld socie tyasa w hol e de al with the c o m plex it y of le apseconds  ju stbec aus eit makeslife a
l it tl eea sie r for astronom er s?
~ ~~acqqI t's no t abo ut b ei ng eas y for t h ea s tron om er s bu t f or  thehuma n s.The
ast ronomersalr e adyha ve  to use  all of TAI,UT 0, UT1 and  U TCand mu c h  more
co mplex calculations. Weo ther hu man s use  day s. We hav e t he day lig h t savi ng
tim e and  n obo d y  care s fo r a nhour diffe r e nce  twic ea ye ar beca use those who do
c a reuse the lessmov ingt i me  st a mp s , o ft e n c a l led UTC, even i f they are  j u st 
"synchron i zed  w ith UTC " and n ot ex a ctly UT C, as the y have in  P OSIX - i nsp ired
syste ms exact ly 86400s econd s  i n a d ay,  alway s.  On ly so me oft heprogr ammers 
t hen "d iscov er " the de finition of the leap se cond a nd re mai n confuse d b y  th e
fact th at t heir compu ter s u se

second) sent_over the_radio clocks.

For the time_less dependent_on_Earth TAI_also_exists (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time)
). So_we already have_the time reference that_"just counts the_atomic
seconds."

Had_there been less confusion among the programmers regarding the leap second
handling on the common_systems_we'd already_all_use_the UTC-SLS solution and
we wouldn't_have to care about the_leap seconds_unless we really need TAI.

\---

1) Watch out for
[http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/conferences/wrc/2015/Pages/defau...](http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/conferences/wrc/2015/Pages/default.aspx)
(2_to_27 November 2015)_if that changes.

2) POSIX already specifies that every day_has exactly 86400 seconds for
"Seconds Since_the Epoch" and_the_current_code relies on that:
[http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_...](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_15)

~~~
dfc
Why_deal with the complexity of leap_seconds; given TAI why should society_as
a whole deal with the complexity of_leap seconds just because it makes_life a
little easier for astronomers?

~~~
acqq
It's_not about_being easy for the astronomers_but for the_humans. The
astronomers_already have to_use all of TAI, UT0, UT1_and UTC and_much more
complex calculations. We other humans_use_days. We have_the_daylight_saving
time and_nobody cares for_an_hour difference_twice_a year because those who do
care_use_the less moving time stamps, often called_UTC, even if they_are_just
"synchronized with UTC" and_not exactly UTC, as they_have in POSIX-inspired
systems exactly 86400 seconds_in a_day, always._Only some of the programmers
then "discover" the definition of the leap_second and remain confused by the
fact_that their computers use