The radical plan to destroy time zones

[GaryV]

Are you being paid extra for working today?  Or have you donated your time to the boss?  (Obviously applies to salary, not hourly.)

[kkt]

Are you being paid extra for working today?  Or have you donated your time to the boss?  (Obviously applies to salary, not hourly.)

My boss generously pays the same for 28- to 30-day months as they do for 31-day months.

[cl94]

Are you being paid extra for working today?  Or have you donated your time to the boss?  (Obviously applies to salary, not hourly.)

I'm paid the same amount every other week regardless of how long a month is.

[leroys73]

Are you being paid extra for working today?  Or have you donated your time to the boss?  (Obviously applies to salary, not hourly.)

That is what I asked my wife as she is on a yearly salary and paid on the first and 15th.  So yes she worked for free on the 29th.

[jeffandnicole]

I get paid every 2 weeks regardless, with my yearly salary split evenly into those paychecks.

It actually makes a bigger difference how many work days are in a year.  In a normal year where there's 365 days, and there's 261 work days (with 52 Saturdays & 52 Sundays), I get a bit less in my paycheck every 2 weeks than in a year where there's 260 work days (52 Saturdays and 53 Sundays or 53 Saturdays and 52 Sundays), or years where there is 259 work days (53 Saturdays and 53 Sundays).  But at the end of the year, what matters is that I earned my full salary for that year.

The calculations (using $50k and gross pay for easy math):
261 work days: $191.57 earned per day. 
260 work days: $192.31 
259 work days: $193.05

Are you being paid extra for working today?  Or have you donated your time to the boss?  (Obviously applies to salary, not hourly.)

That is what I asked my wife as she is on a yearly salary and paid on the first and 15th.  So yes she worked for free on the 29th.

Actually, in theory, she gets paid for the 1st thru the 14th on the 15th, then paid for the 15th thru the 28th on the 1st.  She works for free every 29th, 30th and 31st.  If anything, she made out better in February, because she only worked for free 1 day that month, rather than 2 or 3 days in the other months!

[Rothman]

I'm pretty sure I don't work for free.  I get paid every two weeks.  Pay periods are 14 days no matter what.  It's not like I get a partial end-of-year check if the last pay period ends before December 31st, or that I get docked if a pay period doesn't start right on January 1st.

[leroys73]

That is what I asked my wife as she is on a yearly salary and paid on the first and 15th.  So yes she worked for free on the 29th.
[/quote]

Actually, in theory, she gets paid for the 1st thru the 14th on the 15th, then paid for the 15th thru the 28th on the 1st.  She works for free every 29th, 30th and 31st.  If anything, she made out better in February, because she only worked for free 1 day that month, rather than 2 or 3 days in the other months!
[/quote]

It is still one more day this year.  Her salary is divided by 24 pay periods.  She is on a salary for 12 months so instead of 365 she has 366 days.  Yes, she has worked/traveled on Saturday and Sunday before plus 10 to 12 hour days are common.  Hope she gets a bonus this year for that extra day.  I'll help her spend it. 

I am glad I am retired.  My last 35 years it did not matter for the month of February as I was contracted for a specific number of days per year.       

[texaskdog]

Should be year round DST. 

[Road Hog]

I would be OK with eliminating two time zones in North America, combining Central and Eastern into UTC +5 and combining Mountain and Pacific into UTC+7. Plus eliminating DST, since Central and Pacific would in effect be on DST year-round in this arrangement.

A radical move would be to create a single time zone coast to coast centered on the Central-Mountain boundary, where Pacific would turn the clock 1:30 ahead and Eastern would shift 1:30 back. That would mitigate disruption of living patterns on each coast to a degree. But I do not like half-hour incremental shifts off of UTC like Newfoundland has.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

^^ So you would put current Eastern and Central zones in the same time zone as most of the -stans and current Mountain and Pacific zones the same as Southeast Asia?  (I assume you meant UTC-5 and UTC-7)

Should be year round DST. 

I myself live in permanent DST. I'm currently in UTC+1, it should be UTC as I live, to the surprise of those that think the Western hemisphere is only the Americas, sightly West of Greenwich meridian.

[kkt]

... to the surprise of those that think the Western hemisphere is only the Americas, sightly West of Greenwich meridian.

Depends whether you're talking about cultural and historical hemisphere, or strictly following the meridians.  Using "western hemisphere" to mean that half of the world that lies west of the parts known to Europeans, Asians, and Africans up to 1492 is not wrong and often useful.

[Scott5114]

It's not that big a deal in those environments where widely-dispersed operations already result in folks standardizing on UTC, but for nontechnical conversational purposes, terms like "today" and "tomorrow" become potentially ambiguous if the calendar day changes around high noon, at tea-time, etc.

Casinos operate around something called a "gaming day". Since on weekends, 12:00am local time is in the middle of peak hours, all of the paperwork is continued to be dated with the prior civil date until an arbitrary time in the morning. (Because this also affects federally-required records required to deter money laundering, I'm actually legally prohibited from disclosing the exact time.) When I worked graveyard, our shift ended one hour after the date change, leading to a commonly-asked question toward the end of the shift being "Is it tomorrow yet?"

[english si]

Depends whether you're talking about cultural and historical hemisphere

WTF are they?

Oh, it's a specifically US English definition that has creeped into the language by the geographically ignorant (which you can reasonably expect no one on this forum to be) who forget that western Europe/Africa are west of the the arbitrary divisor between west and east when it comes to longitude. It's use has, unsurprisingly not made it to European English, most of the native speakers of which are in the Western Hemisphere and thus will react strongly to a pointlessly long term for 'the Americas' that is also seeks to reclassify, if not deny the existence of, the place where they have spent most of their lives...

Using "western hemisphere" to mean that half of the world that lies west of the parts known to Europeans, Asians, and Africans up to 1492 is not wrong

It is.

Even ignoring the massive historical error you've made...

Also, non of the US dictionary definitions mention Australia, New Zealand, etc that you have just co-opted in (with similar historical problems re: discovery - especially wrt Asians) with using the definition of "The New World" to describe the silly verbose way of saying "America" or "The Americas" that you use.

and often useful.

When?

"The Americas" are shorter, less confusing and more precise.


The division between 'western' and 'eastern' hemispheres is pretty pointless, other than as a cool geographic factoid if you are near the meridan (which I walked across Tuesday afternoon and rode a train across back to the Western Hemisphere on Tuesday evening, without really knowing or caring* - I was more concerned about the nearby Middlesex/Essex historic border when traveling on foot (and got very worried I'd walked too far when I reached signs saying 'Essex' as I hadn't realised that I would leave Greater London on my travels) than the meridian.

*obviously my geography geekiness means I know, and this idiotic US definition getting used in this forum is the only reason I care.

[vdeane]

Well, what do you guys call "that part of the world that isn't the Americas"?

I notice that there's no controversy with respect to the northern and southern hemispheres, probably because the equator actually means something, whereas the prime meridian is arguably one of the most useless things ever invented in the history of geography (as was only placed where it is because Britain had an empire at the time and considered itself the center of the world, something that the US considers itself today), which probably led to the co-opting of the eastern and western hemispheres to mean "America's domain" (don't forget that by virtue of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny, we effectively claim every spec of land on both continents) and "everywhere else".  Also note that the dispute really with respect to the meridian, and not the international date line (which at least has meaning).

[english si]

Well, what do you guys call "that part of the world that isn't the Americas"

The Old World? Eurasia-Africa? The world that isn't the Americas? OK, the first two ignore Oceania (though looking at wikipedia, 'New World' apparently ignores it too), but it never comes up this side of the Atlantic.

Nor have I seen any of you guys use "eastern hemisphere" in this way until you just used it then when you've been backed into a corner trying to justify using the term "western hemisphere" when "the Americas" is a more precise (as you mean a continent, rather than literally half the world's surface), accurate (as you are not suggesting that I, in the Western Hemisphere, am in the 'western hemisphere') and succinct (far fewer letters and syllables) term!

I notice that there's no controversy with respect to the northern and southern hemispheres, probably because the equator actually means something, whereas the prime meridian is arguably one of the most useless things ever invented in the history of geography

Indeed. See the bottom paragraph of my last post.

And the uselessness of dividing the world in half at the Prime meridian is exactly why using the term "western hemisphere" isn't useful like kkt insists it is!

(as was only placed where it is because Britain had an empire at the time and considered itself the center of the world, something that the US considers itself today)

Yes and no. It was partially placed there as one of the world's best observatories was there, partially as the Brits had come up with the notion of having some sort of co-ordinated time to measure longitude in the first place (an Englishman invented a clock that would stay accurate at sea), and the USA (and other powers at the time) went with Greenwich over Paris. Even if we were making it up today, the 180 line is nearly the best place to put it to miss land for where the Date Line would be.

If it was about British self importance, you'd have thought that the 0 line would have gone through London or Westminster, rather than some parkland on its fringe? (even in the 1920s, the urban area hadn't surrounded Greenwich Park and Black Heath).

which probably led to the co-opting of the eastern and western hemispheres to mean "America's domain" (don't forget that by virtue of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny, we effectively claim every spec of land on both continents) and "everywhere else".

Except you don't use 'eastern hemisphere' to mean 'everything else' as you don't use the term at all...

[Desert Man]

Daylight savings time began Sunday morning and I'm trying to get used to later daylight in the evening (the extra hour added in there). I like the idea of time zones for each 15 degrees longitude starting from 0 meridian (Greenwich time) in the namesake observatory in London, England, UK. Originally they were enacted by support from railroad companies in the US and Europe and what we have is a global 24-hour time zone map, plus the International Date Line straddle most of the 180th meridian opposite the Greenwich meridian. It's always tomorrow west of the IDL (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Siberian Russia, the Philipines and east Asia).

[freebrickproductions]

Daylight savings time began Sunday morning and I'm trying to get used to later daylight in the evening (the extra hour added in there). I like the idea of time zones for each 15 degrees longitude starting from 0 meridian (Greenwich time) in the namesake observatory in London, England, UK. Originally they were enacted by support from railroad companies in the US and Europe and what we have is a global 24-hour time zone map, plus the International Date Line straddle most of the 180th meridian opposite the Greenwich meridian. It's always tomorrow west of the IDL (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Siberian Russia, the Philipines and east Asia).

Would this mean that you'd constantly be going back in time if you kept heading east?

[Road Hog]

Daylight savings time began Sunday morning and I'm trying to get used to later daylight in the evening (the extra hour added in there). I like the idea of time zones for each 15 degrees longitude starting from 0 meridian (Greenwich time) in the namesake observatory in London, England, UK. Originally they were enacted by support from railroad companies in the US and Europe and what we have is a global 24-hour time zone map, plus the International Date Line straddle most of the 180th meridian opposite the Greenwich meridian. It's always tomorrow west of the IDL (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Siberian Russia, the Philipines and east Asia).

Would this mean that you'd constantly be going back in time if you kept heading east?

No, because you'll constantly be hitting midnight while circling the globe and entering the next day before you cross the date line and snap back.

[geek11111]

In China in addition to Beijing time (UTC+8) the Xinjiang Uyghur government has set an unofficial time zone more consistent with its longitude, UTC+6.

And yes, here in Spain we are in permanent DST, but we are not constantly tired, we simply adjusted our customs accordingly. Right now it's 11:07 p.m. (5:07 p.m. Eastern), if we were in the correct time zone I'd probably go to sleep at this hour, maybe a bit earlier.

Do Spanish start work at a later hours, like 10 or 11am?

[1995hoo]

Holy threadbump, Batman.

[Scott5114]

No kidding. The last time someone posted to this thread, Barack Obama was President.

[1995hoo]

No kidding. The last time someone posted to this thread, Barack Obama was President.

There's probably some sort of time-related joke there somewhere, but my reaction to geek11111's post was more like the way the Aflac duck shook its head in confusion in the ad with Yogi Berra from some years back (you know, "If you get hurt and miss work, it won't hurt to miss work").

[Max Rockatansky]

No kidding. The last time someone posted to this thread, Barack Obama was President.

Perhaps the "radical plan" is time compression?  The past, present and future all existing simultaneously?

[freebrickproductions]

No kidding. The last time someone posted to this thread, Barack Obama was President.

Perhaps the "radical plan" is time compression?  The past, present and future all existing simultaneously?

I mean, let's be real here, they all already do. Time and the associated concepts of the "past" and "future" are fully human-made social constructs* and do not exist to the universe, it is always just the "present". Everything that is happening is happening now, everything that has ever happened happened now, and everything that will ever happen will happen now. The universe does not care about the system of dates and times that some random creatures on a planet made based on the rotation of said planet and how long it takes for said plant to revolve around its star.

*Assuming intelligent life exists elsewhere, they presumably would have their own system of date and time, likely based on their own planet's characteristics. Assuming any of said other life is able to do interstellar travel, I could imagine trying to sync-up times between different planets would be quite a chore!

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll be surprised if anyone gets the reference I was going for, admittedly it is obscure.  But if we want to turn this into conversation about GR or a possibly Grand Unified Theory it might be interesting.