Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 08, 2015, 10:38:33 AM53. The forum servers' clock doesn't stick to a time zone all year round and now it says it is one hour later than my actual time. This will last three weeks, until DST comes into force in Europe in the last weekend of March.
It just does it as an offset, meaning that (as well as not fitting the variety of dates to switch) places (containing a majority of the world's population) who don't take part in the changing of the clocks, have to change their forum clock!
Made a new topic --sso
Waaah. The majority of the forum's population changes their clocks.
I have dealt with the last two time changes ("fall back" in autumn and "spring forward" early this morning) simply by not changing my clocks last fall. I also never bother to change the clock on any forum of which I am a member.
Just to add: Japan does not have DST. It also does not allow any use of mobile telephones--either voice or text--when driving, which I happen to agree with, and does not routinely offer defendants the right of trial by jury, which I have reservations about and am sure many others on here would object to outright.
Quote from: NE2 on March 08, 2015, 12:06:47 PM
Waaah. The majority of the forum's population changes their clocks.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssoworld.org%2Fpics%2Fburgandy_dst.jpg&hash=3fea4090e7635750da45f4fee25268d4c58f9526)
sorry, had to :-D
I wish they would pick one or the other (I don't care which) and stick with it. Now I have to spend the next six weeks waiting for my internal clock to sync with the external clock.
Quote from: bugo on March 08, 2015, 04:43:10 PM
I wish they would pick one or the other (I don't care which) and stick with it. Now I have to spend the next six weeks waiting for my internal clock to sync with the external clock.
Maybe not six weeks, but people who act like a one hour daylight savings time jump is the same thing as getting in a car or plane to drive to another time zone don't get it.
It's substantially harder to execute your current, daily routine and have it shift by an hour than it is to do something different in another time zone. I work 8 to 5 Monday through Friday and am pretty hard wired to get up at 6:50 AM every morning, etc, if I am at home in my own routine. Shifting everything backward by an hour is hard. If I drive to South Dakota, I'm off the routine so I don't even notice an hour time change (typically if traveling, I can go up to three hours in either direction without really noticing a difference, 7 or 8 before I'd consider myself "jet-lagged"), but an hour change at home is hard.
I know a lot of people don't like this, but I wouldn't mind if DST stuck around all year. Yeah, it would get light later in the morning, but the fact that the sun is still high in the sky makes me happy.
I prefer the extra hour of daylight in the afternoons, when I get home from work, than in the mornings when I am either getting ready to go to work or am at work (weekdays) or asleep (weekends).
Quote from: cl94 on March 08, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
I know a lot of people don't like this, but I wouldn't mind if DST stuck around all year. Yeah, it would get light later in the morning, but the fact that the sun is still high in the sky makes me happy.
But it doesn't change the amount of sun at all. I keep hearing the nonsense phrase "extra daylight." How powerful do these people think Congress is?
Only one state in the US remains not compliant to the nation's observance of Daylight Savings time: Arizona. Because a hour of daylight in later times in a hot desert climate could waste more energy in forms of A/cs. For a long time, Indiana which is divided into 2 time zones: Central in the northwest sharing Chicago's time and Eastern for most of the state and Indianapolis, at least one time zone observed Daylight savings and the other remained on standard (don't know which zone did this). Even towns or counties can opt not to do daylight savings like Kenton, OK on the west tip of the panhandle declared Mountain Time as their official time zone.
^^ For Indiana, the NW part observed DST and the rest of the state didn't.
Expanding on what is mentioned above, Indiana's Eastern Time Zone portion did not change clocks, I know since this is only my 9th or 10th year I've had to change clocks. In the winter we were on the same time as Ohio and in the summer we were on the same time as Illinois. Likewise, counties near the Louisville (Harrison, Clark and Floyd) and Cincinnati (Dearborn and Ohio) metro areas in Indiana unofficially kept their clocks in sync with Kentucky and Ohio all year round. I always felt it was weird traveling into Ohio during the summer and going forward one hour even though we weren't crossing a time zone boundary. Now time changes only at the time zone boundary between Central and Eastern. And don't ask a Hoosier which time zone they should be in, you'll never hear the end of it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg0.joyreactor.com%2Fpics%2Fpost%2Ffunny-pictures-auto-486280.jpeg&hash=1eb167676bdcd3d78bfc756b76d009b8075bdc59)
My personal opinion is I prefer the "later" sunsets. It gives me more time for photography and investigating old alignments.
Hawaii doesn't observe daylight saving time (not "savings") either, but in their case it's because their location in the tropics means the length of a day doesn't vary enough with the seasons (such as they are there) to make it worth bothering.
Quote from: tdindy88 on March 08, 2015, 09:09:57 PM
Expanding on what is mentioned above, Indiana's Eastern Time Zone portion did not change clocks, I know since this is only my 9th or 10th year I've had to change clocks. In the winter we were on the same time as Ohio and in the summer we were on the same time as Illinois. Likewise, counties near the Louisville (Harrison, Clark and Floyd) and Cincinnati (Dearborn and Ohio) metro areas in Indiana unofficially kept their clocks in sync with Kentucky and Ohio all year round. I always felt it was weird traveling into Ohio during the summer and going forward one hour even though we weren't crossing a time zone boundary. Now time changes only at the time zone boundary between Central and Eastern. And don't ask a Hoosier which time zone they should be in, you'll never hear the end of it.
I remember getting up at 4:30AM to go to the Indy 500 the first year they used DST (2005). The sun was all the way up by 5AM.
I'm a freelance photographer and graphics designer and having the "extra daylight", if you will, gives me a much better time to be outside and walking around Missoula. I'm not for or against DST, it's the fact that some people who complain about DST just haven't adopted to it and getting rid of DST actually makes things worse tourist-wise. That one hour forward gives people in some tourist areas a later sunset for all to see. Complaining about DST isn't getting you anywhere.
Quote from: Big John on March 08, 2015, 09:07:54 PM
^^ For Indiana, the NW part observed DST and the rest of the state didn't.
The Wikipedia article "Time in Indiana" is baffling in its length and complexity. It's sort of the four-color map problem of timekeeping. Metro areas at the corners of the state, plus Indy in the middle, makes picking a line complicated, and DST confuses the issue further.
For about the zillionth time, Daylight Saving Time is useless for greater Cincinnati - unless the area moves to the Central Time Zone.
DST puts us 98 minutes off from our natural cycle.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 08, 2015, 09:15:16 PM
Hawaii doesn't observe daylight saving time (not "savings") either, but in their case it's because their location in the tropics means the length of a day doesn't vary enough with the seasons (such as they are there) to make it worth bothering.
Also, Hawaii has strong commercial ties to Japan, which doesn't have DST.
There's some noise in Alaska about also dropping DST, also because of ties to Japan, but also because DST is largely irrelevant there too. The length of daylight changes so much, especially near or north of the Arctic Circle, as to overwhelm the one-hour DST time shift. However, neighboring British Columbia and the Yukon are both on DST, while Hawaii has no neighboring jurisdictions to worry about.
You know, we all went thru the time change just 3 months ago. Except for an extreme few people, everyone got over the time change by Monday. Heck, no one here has mentioned how long it took them to get over it in November, leading me to conclude that people just like to complain about the time change way longer than it actually affects them.
Quote from: bandit957 on March 08, 2015, 09:39:36 PM
For about the zillionth time, Daylight Saving Time is useless for greater Cincinnati - unless the area moves to the Central Time Zone.
DST puts us 98 minutes off from our natural cycle.
You know I never really thought about that when I was living there. Cincinnati is much further west of Columbus (the latitude I'm used to) than it is south, contrary to popular belief. Old maps show that almost all of Kentucky used to be on Central Time; even places like Ashland which is much further east than Cincinnati.
Quote from: bandit957 on March 08, 2015, 09:39:36 PM
For about the zillionth time, Daylight Saving Time is useless for greater Cincinnati - unless the area moves to the Central Time Zone.
DST puts us 98 minutes off from our natural cycle.
Quote from: GCrites80s on March 08, 2015, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on March 08, 2015, 09:39:36 PM
For about the zillionth time, Daylight Saving Time is useless for greater Cincinnati - unless the area moves to the Central Time Zone.
DST puts us 98 minutes off from our natural cycle.
You know I never really thought about that when I was living there. Cincinnati is much further west of Columbus (the latitude I'm used to) than it is south, contrary to popular belief. Old maps show that almost all of Kentucky used to be on Central Time; even places like Ashland which is much further east than Cincinnati.
I don't like Central time. I never really did like traveling into the Central time zone. I had an aunt and uncle who moved into one of the easternmost Central time counties, and even then they pretty much did everything on what they called "Louisville time." The commuting patterns from that county were generally to the Eastern time zone (Elizabethtown).
Kentucky's been, best I can tell, traditionally an Eastern time zone state and the eastern part of the state was only moved into the Central time zone temporarily when it was deemed preferable for energy conservation reasons.
I would really dislike it should this area of the state be moved into Central time.
I don't see how DST can be viewed as "useless" since it provides an extra hour of daylight during non-working hours so people can do things outside. For me, I hate getting home from work around 5:30 in December and January when it's already pretty much dark. I was outside this evening until close to 8 and there was still some daylight even though the sky was cloudy.
Move this area -- or Cincinnati -- into Central time via an act of Congress with an effective date of March 1, then 6 p.m. becomes 5 p.m. Then the first weekend of March, "spring forward" and it becomes 6 p.m. again. So you haven't gained anything. You're back to where you were. Therefore I don't understand Tim's logic.
I've heard people talk about putting Maine on Atlantic Standard Time year round, much like Puerto Rico is. Sure...isolate them from Boston and the rest of New England. That'll work real well...NOT!
Without DST, the sunrise for Portland, Maine on June 21st would be 3:59 AM. Say wha?
The longest the day gets for Hartford, CT is 5:15 AM and 8:30 PM (15h 15m).
I still feel Indianapolis should be in the Central Time Zone and be in line with Chicago. I visited that city in August of 2010. I was in Nashville one week earlier. The sunrise and set times with these cities was nearly identical, when you adjust the clock one hour for Indy. I would think their longitude are very close.
It's the effect of time zones. Most of the time zones are situated behind solar time by up to more than an hour.
Up until yesterday, I don't think Hartford's solar noon was later than 12:10 PM.
The sun should be directly above at 12:00. Anything else is stupid. The sky is barely light five hours before noon these days, but ooh! look how much daylight we tacked onto the end of the day. Who stole the light that helps me get out of bed in the morning, that's what I want to know!
I just blew a guy's mind at church this morning. He mentioned being encouraged to do more during the day since the day is longer. I corrected him, that the day isn't actually longer. He corrected himself further: since there's an extra hour of sunlight. Again: it's the same amount of sunlight. And then he mentioned farmers, and I knew I had to just give up.
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 08, 2015, 10:53:57 PM
It's the effect of time zones. Most of the time zones are situated behind solar time by up to more than an hour.
If it's significantly more than an hour, a place should probably be moved to another time zone. Cincinnati is 98 minutes off for 9 months a year, and should be moved.
For a few weeks, I do like that U.S time is an hour closer to European time until Europe changes at the end of the month. Makes soccer watching a little easier on Saturday mornings.
I posted this one hour later to make up for the (in)difference.
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2015, 12:39:29 AM
The sun should be directly above at 12:00. Anything else is stupid. The sky is barely light five hours before noon these days, but ooh! look how much daylight we tacked onto the end of the day. Who stole the light that helps me get out of bed in the morning, that's what I want to know!
The morning thing is a particluarly bitter pill after just finally getting out of rising in darkness.
As far as noon being when the sun is highest, we had that once. But it was that or time zones, and fortunately we (or the railroads anyway) chose the latter. Far easier to keep track of.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2015, 10:09:07 PM
You know, we all went thru the time change just 3 months ago. Except for an extreme few people, everyone got over the time change by Monday. Heck, no one here has mentioned how long it took them to get over it in November, leading me to conclude that people just like to complain about the time change way longer than it actually affects them.
I don't doubt that part of it is that gaining an hour of sleep (in November) is less of an annoyance for most people than losing an hour.
I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as it's made out to be these days, but I'm definitely yawning more than usual this morning. No doubt part of that is that it's just harder to get up when it's dark outside. Not sleeping well because it was too warm isn't helping either, but that has nothing to do with DST.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 09, 2015, 07:56:46 AMThe morning thing is a particluarly bitter pill after just finally getting out of rising in darkness.
Yes - if you are going to do DST, don't begin it so early in the year that people's mornings become dark again!
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 08, 2015, 09:37:54 PM
Quote from: Big John on March 08, 2015, 09:07:54 PM
^^ For Indiana, the NW part observed DST and the rest of the state didn't.
The Wikipedia article "Time in Indiana" is baffling in its length and complexity. It's sort of the four-color map problem of timekeeping. Metro areas at the corners of the state, plus Indy in the middle, makes picking a line complicated, and DST confuses the issue further.
I used to work in IT as a network engineer for a big auto parts manufacturer that had several plants in small Indiana towns. Whenever I had to schedule work with any of them, I would always call the contact person for that plant and ask them what time it was there at that moment relative to me in Michigan since the rules re DST and Indiana were so hosed.
Quote from: english si on March 09, 2015, 08:03:45 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 09, 2015, 07:56:46 AMThe morning thing is a particluarly bitter pill after just finally getting out of rising in darkness.
Yes - if you are going to do DST, don't begin it so early in the year that people's mornings become dark again!
It wasn't that long ago when DST began the 1st week of April. Before that, DST began later in April. People have expressed a desire to have that extra hour of daylight in the evening, not the morning, and are willing to put up with the short period of time in which it's dark out in the morning in order to have more daylight in the evening.
Quote from: cl94 on March 08, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
I know a lot of people don't like this, but I wouldn't mind if DST stuck around all year. Yeah, it would get light later in the morning, but the fact that the sun is still high in the sky makes me happy.
Better still, let's just eliminate DST entirely. Next time there's supposed to be a clock adjustment, adjust it by half an hour and leave it there for good.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2015, 08:21:47 AM
Quote from: english si on March 09, 2015, 08:03:45 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 09, 2015, 07:56:46 AMThe morning thing is a particluarly bitter pill after just finally getting out of rising in darkness.
Yes - if you are going to do DST, don't begin it so early in the year that people's mornings become dark again!
It wasn't that long ago when DST began the 1st week of April. Before that, DST began later in April. People have expressed a desire to have that extra hour of daylight in the evening, not the morning, and are willing to put up with the short period of time in which it's dark out in the morning in order to have more daylight in the evening.
End of April to end of October when I was a kid. It was extended to the first Sunday in April in the mid-1980s, then to the current dates in 2007.
I thought the last Sunday in April seemed a bit late for the time change, but the current system seems too early. I kind of like the idea of using the last Sunday in March simply because it makes it easier when dealing with Europe because that's when they change their clocks–it just simplifies things if we all do it at the same time because you always get people forgetting New York is only four hours behind London for the next few weeks and the like.
I suppose from a practical standpoint one advantage for a huge number of people to not changing on the first Sunday in April is that under the current system in the US and Canada, the time change never occurs on Easter Sunday (as it would have this year). Changing on the last Sunday in March would re-introduce that problem (which I suppose could occur on the last Sunday in April as well–under the ecclesiastical calendar used by western denominations, Easter can occur from March 22 to April 25 inclusive; under the calendar used by eastern denominations, it can currently occur from April 4 to May 8).
I always thought having it the last Sunday in October was a pain because it would conflict with Halloween some years.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2015, 09:59:51 AM
I always thought having it the last Sunday in October was a pain because it would conflict with Halloween some years.
The candy lobbyists were one of the groups who pushed hard to extend it a week in the fall.
One reason the NFL has scheduled a game in London on the last Sunday in October every year since 2007 (including this coming season) is that the clocks there go back that weekend but ours go back the following weekend, so the time difference is less and they can have the game kick off an hour earlier London time.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 09, 2015, 07:56:46 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2015, 12:39:29 AM
The sun should be directly above at 12:00. Anything else is stupid. The sky is barely light five hours before noon these days, but ooh! look how much daylight we tacked onto the end of the day. Who stole the light that helps me get out of bed in the morning, that's what I want to know!
The morning thing is a particluarly bitter pill after just finally getting out of rising in darkness.
As far as noon being when the sun is highest, we had that once. But it was that or time zones, and fortunately we (or the railroads anyway) chose the latter. Far easier to keep track of.
I'm OK with time zones and individual locations being slightly off from having a high noon. But my point is that DST shifts us even further away from that norm than our already-off-center timezone boundaries have us.
And yes, I was just starting to be happy again in the mornings because it was fairly light already before work. I always dread the removal of that hour of light skies on the morning. This year was even worse, because our baby wakes up twice a night, and I need all the help I can get to put feet on floor when the alarm goes off.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 09, 2015, 07:56:46 AMQuote from: kphoger on March 09, 2015, 12:39:29 AMThe sun should be directly above at 12:00. Anything else is stupid. The sky is barely light five hours before noon these days, but ooh! look how much daylight we tacked onto the end of the day. Who stole the light that helps me get out of bed in the morning, that's what I want to know!
The morning thing is a particularly bitter pill after just finally getting out of rising in darkness.
As far as noon being when the sun is highest, we had that once. But it was that or time zones, and fortunately we (or the railroads anyway) chose the latter. Far easier to keep track of.
My personal preference is for dark mornings, so I am happy to have DST move the schedule more to my liking. In fact, I would not mind "year-round" DST or, to be more precise, having my area moved one time zone east. There is always someone whose ox is gored by a time zone assignment.
I am finding this time change far less disruptive than having to half-redo a transmission fluid change since I attempted to use a hex key rather than a hex socket and torque wrench on the drain bolt, which meant that I was not able to tighten it enough (not enough lever arm from a key) and now have a leak.
I prefer the DST year round as you have that extra hour of light. I actually like going to work in the dark and coming home having extra hours of light to actually enjoy your day still.
In fact Nixon tried it in his one of his terms, but parents of school children balked at the idea and soon it went back. The reasoning was parents thought safety of children was compromised do to them waiting for the bus in the early morning dark period or worse yet which was walking to school in the dark.
Yet here in Orlando the school buses are out picking up children at as early as 6 AM and the range goes from 7 to 4 as far as the in class time. I am guessing that is so roads do not get extra congested with school bus traffic and parents on the road if they had all schools go in at the same time and all let out at the same time.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 09, 2015, 10:04:55 AM
The candy lobbyists were one of the groups who pushed hard to extend it a week in the fall.
Reflecting on my experiences as a kid (late 1960s to early 1970s), I always thought it was really neat that DST ended the week before Halloween. The fact my buddies and I used to go out trick-or-treating after it turned dark outside added to the fun and spookieness of the holiday.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 09, 2015, 10:48:38 AM
In fact Nixon tried it in his one of his terms, but parents of school children balked at the idea and soon it went back. The reasoning was parents thought safety of children was compromised do to them waiting for the bus in the early morning dark period or worse yet which was walking to school in the dark.
I was working as a telephone installer that year and I balked at it too, since it meant my first job or two resulted in climbing telephone poles in the dark. Not fun.
Quote from: catch22 on March 09, 2015, 08:17:34 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 08, 2015, 09:37:54 PM
Quote from: Big John on March 08, 2015, 09:07:54 PM
^^ For Indiana, the NW part observed DST and the rest of the state didn't.
The Wikipedia article "Time in Indiana" is baffling in its length and complexity. It's sort of the four-color map problem of timekeeping. Metro areas at the corners of the state, plus Indy in the middle, makes picking a line complicated, and DST confuses the issue further.
I used to work in IT as a network engineer for a big auto parts manufacturer that had several plants in small Indiana towns. Whenever I had to schedule work with any of them, I would always call the contact person for that plant and ask them what time it was there at that moment relative to me in Michigan since the rules re DST and Indiana were so hosed.
Living my entire life relatively close to the Atlantic coast, I have always been on Eastern Time. I would be happy to do away with DST.
Always found it curious that relatively small parts of some states are on a different time zone from the major population centers. One example I was not aware of is western Kansas, which is on Mountain time, not Central time (the time zone boundary is signed on I-70, which is how I learned that). Similarly, the western part of the Florida panhandle is on Central time.
Is this a good idea, or should states (with possible exception for very large states like Alaska and Texas) be on one time zone?
Florida being split was one of the issues in the 2000 election–some networks "called" Florida while polls in the Panhandle were still open.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 09, 2015, 10:48:38 AMI prefer the DST year round as you have that extra hour of light.
:facepalm:
Sure, if you are moving it from, say, 0500-0600 (or earlier, especially in the States where everything happens earlier) to 1800-1900 (or later), then you have an extra hour of usable light. However DST doesn't make the days longer.
In London in winter you are taking light from 0800-0900 if you moved the UK to CET (and either had or didn't have summer time on top of that), and putting it between 1600-1700. You've reduced light outside working hours to zero, and just moved light outside school hours from an hour each side to two hours after - commuting hours will all be in the dark, save school kids coming home, which they had anyway.
QuoteIn fact Nixon tried it in his one of his terms, but parents of school children balked at the idea and soon it went back.
In the UK, it was decreased economy, increased road deaths and suicides, and nonsense like 10am dawns just to get 3pm sunsets in Scottish mid-winter that killed it (interestingly large numbers of MPs from the South East opposed the continuation of the experiment, despite being those who would gain the most and suffer the least. Ditto the recent bill that proposed moving from London time to Berlin time)
DST is a good idea in Summer, but in winter (especially at northern latitudes) it is literally lethal and ought to stand for Deaths and Suicides Time.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2015, 08:21:47 AMIt wasn't that long ago when DST began the 1st week of April. Before that, DST began later in April. People have expressed a desire to have that extra hour of daylight in the evening, not the morning, and are willing to put up with the short period of time in which it's dark out in the morning in order to have more daylight in the evening.
'People' - a vague thing, mostly consisting of the leisure/candy industry that works later in the day anyway. Plus people in power (eg Congressmen) who tend to be 'earlys' on the body clock as stupid school hours and societial biases make 'lates' seem stupid and lazy and get don't get given power are the ones calling the shots - they, of course, prefer society to be more biased in favour of them.
And who cares about those killed in car crashes, or who commit suicide due to the darker mornings returning this week as there wasn't enough light in the morning to move - they aren't 'people' no more.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2015, 11:31:24 AMAlways found it curious that relatively small parts of some states are on a different time zone from the major population centers. One example I was not aware of is western Kansas, which is on Mountain time, not Central time (the time zone boundary is signed on I-70, which is how I learned that). Similarly, the western part of the Florida panhandle is on Central time.
Is this a good idea, or should states (with possible exception for very large states like Alaska and Texas) be on one time zone?
I presume that, like Indiana and it's former Louisville and Chicago area time zones it's due to being closer to somewhere out of state, rather than in-state.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
Is this a good idea, or should states (with possible exception for very large states like Alaska and Texas) be on one time zone?
Even huge Alaska is mostly in one time zone, except for far western Alaska in the Aleutian time zone, which has almost no population (Dutch Harbor and Nome are on Alaska time). Alaska used to have four time zones (one covering only a few hundred people in the Yakutat part of the southeastern panhandle), so the current situation is a big improvement.
The bigger question is, why shouldn't states split between time zones consider realignments of their state lines, such as for example adding Pensacola and other Central Time parts of Florida to Alabama?
Quote from: cl94 on March 08, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
I know a lot of people don't like this, but I wouldn't mind if DST stuck around all year. Yeah, it would get light later in the morning, but the fact that the sun is still high in the sky makes me happy.
Getting light later in the morning is great, if you don't care at all about millions of kids at higher risk for accidents and attacks while waiting for school buses in the dark. But that's insignificant compared to adults wanting more daylight in the evening.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
Living my entire life relatively close to the Atlantic coast, I have always been on Eastern Time. I would be happy to do away with DST.
Always found it curious that relatively small parts of some states are on a different time zone from the major population centers. One example I was not aware of is western Kansas, which is on Mountain time, not Central time (the time zone boundary is signed on I-70, which is how I learned that). Similarly, the western part of the Florida panhandle is on Central time.
Is this a good idea, or should states (with possible exception for very large states like Alaska and Texas) be on one time zone?
I don't think size should matter. (Wait, I mean...)
The problem with a state sticking with one time zone presents the issues that was mentioned about Ohio, with Cincinnati being so far behind in terms of daylight in the evening, darkness in the morning, and the midday sun occurring 90-some minutes past "midday".
Quote from: english si on March 09, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 09, 2015, 10:48:38 AMI prefer the DST year round as you have that extra hour of light.
:facepalm:
I think we know what he means. He's smart enough to understand daylight doesn't magically increase by an hour.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 09, 2015, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 08, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
I know a lot of people don't like this, but I wouldn't mind if DST stuck around all year. Yeah, it would get light later in the morning, but the fact that the sun is still high in the sky makes me happy.
Getting light later in the morning is great, if you don't care at all about millions of kids at higher risk for accidents and attacks while waiting for school buses in the dark. But that's insignificant compared to adults wanting more daylight in the evening.
Site stats proving that.
For the most part, the majority of attempted luring incidents occur in the afternoon as kids come home from school, which are almost always in daylight, year around.
I love the extended evening daylight. I'm fine with darker mornings. My mornings are indoors where I can turn on lights. Driving in the dark doesn't bother me, especially in town where you're unlikely to hit a deer. I hate the dark-at-5:30 Christmas season; it makes me sad. I like later light because later in the day is when I'm likely to be outside.
I never notice when the sun reaches its highest point; the time when that happens has no effect on me. What makes a difference to me is whether it gets dark at 5:30 or at 9:30. Of course, my southerly location means the length of daylight doesn't change as drastically as it does closer to the poles, so I might think differently if faced with 10 am sunrise or 11 pm sunset.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 09, 2015, 11:38:54 AM
Florida being split was one of the issues in the 2000 election–some networks "called" Florida while polls in the Panhandle were still open.
There was at least one year (1992, I think) when Indiana was called while the polls in the Central Time Zone (mostly around Gary) were still open. A lot of folks in Gary didn't vote, as a result.
Quote from: cl94 on March 08, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
I know a lot of people don't like this, but I wouldn't mind if DST stuck around all year. Yeah, it would get light later in the morning, but the fact that the sun is still high in the sky makes me happy.
What? How? If it was DST year-round here, in the winter it would still be pitch dark by 8:00 AM when most people are either at work or on their way.
Clocks are not natural, they are works of people and there's nothing wrong with adjusting them to suit people's natural tendency to get up about dawn.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 09, 2015, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 08, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
I know a lot of people don't like this, but I wouldn't mind if DST stuck around all year. Yeah, it would get light later in the morning, but the fact that the sun is still high in the sky makes me happy.
Getting light later in the morning is great, if you don't care at all about millions of kids at higher risk for accidents and attacks while waiting for school buses in the dark. But that's insignificant compared to adults wanting more daylight in the evening.
Then change the school sessions then.
BTW Daylight or Standard time kids in Orlando go to school in the dark!
Quote from: kkt on March 09, 2015, 01:03:09 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 08, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
I know a lot of people don't like this, but I wouldn't mind if DST stuck around all year. Yeah, it would get light later in the morning, but the fact that the sun is still high in the sky makes me happy.
What? How? If it was DST year-round here, in the winter it would still be pitch dark by 8:00 AM when most people are either at work or on their way.
Clocks are not natural, they are works of people and there's nothing wrong with adjusting them to suit people's natural tendency to get up about dawn.
Year round DST...I'd even say 2 hours of it. I hate winter where even though it's not cold here in Austin we can't go hiking after work all winter.
What really stinks is being on the eastern edge of a time zone during standard time. If it's more or less dark by 5:30 p.m. in Elizabethtown or Monticello, Ky., that means it's more or less dark by 4:30 p.m. in Leitchfield or Albany.
Who really cares if the time is off "normal" or the sun isn't directly overhead at noon? I don't.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 09, 2015, 12:23:32 PM
Getting light later in the morning is great, if you don't care at all about millions of kids at higher risk for accidents and attacks while waiting for school buses in the dark. But that's insignificant compared to adults wanting more daylight in the evening.
Isn't this
OMG FEAR!!!! instead of a real legitimate safety concern?
Quote from: hbelkins on March 09, 2015, 04:38:11 PMIsn't this OMG FEAR!!!! instead of a real legitimate safety concern?
I find that the lighter later bunch are worse at this sort of fearmongering.
For instance, year round summer time in the UK is often argued as 'kids shouldn't have to walk home in the dark' ignoring that would have to walk to school in the dark, and don't typically have to walk home in the dark either.
Quote from: oscar on March 09, 2015, 11:52:32 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
Is this a good idea, or should states (with possible exception for very large states like Alaska and Texas) be on one time zone?
Even huge Alaska is mostly in one time zone, except for far western Alaska in the Aleutian time zone, which has almost no population (Dutch Harbor and Nome are on Alaska time). Alaska used to have four time zones (one covering only a few hundred people in the Yakutat part of the southeastern panhandle), so the current situation is a big improvement.
The bigger question is, why shouldn't states split between time zones consider realignments of their state lines, such as for example adding Pensacola and other Central Time parts of Florida to Alabama?
Hey, the Florida panhandle has always been known as LA-Lower Alabama...and if you look at American history at one time it WAS projected to be part of Alabama, IIRC...
Much of US Central Time is at the equivalent of Canadian and longitudinal Eastern time. The US Eastern time is shifted east to accomodate all of the east coast (some of which would be in Atlantic time ordinarily)
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 09, 2015, 08:38:18 PM
Much of US Central Time is at the equivalent of Canadian and longitudinal Eastern time. The US Eastern time is shifted east to accomodate all of the east coast (some of which would be in Atlantic time ordinarily)
This is the quirk of US geography. The western 2/3 of the eastern time zone is behind solar noon, obviously getting progressively worse going west, as the poster citing Cincinnati shows. The problem lies with New York City, DC, and the business world in general. Yes, Cincinnati and a good chunk of the U.S. Eastern time zone should be shifted but that will never happen, but I can't imagine Cincinnati shifting time zones without Columbus and Cleveland shouting out the fact they're still on NYC time. The U.S. operates on two time zones, with allowances for the others as needed.
Quote from: DeaconG on March 09, 2015, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: oscar on March 09, 2015, 11:52:32 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
Is this a good idea, or should states (with possible exception for very large states like Alaska and Texas) be on one time zone?
Even huge Alaska is mostly in one time zone, except for far western Alaska in the Aleutian time zone, which has almost no population (Dutch Harbor and Nome are on Alaska time). Alaska used to have four time zones (one covering only a few hundred people in the Yakutat part of the southeastern panhandle), so the current situation is a big improvement.
The bigger question is, why shouldn't states split between time zones consider realignments of their state lines, such as for example adding Pensacola and other Central Time parts of Florida to Alabama?
Hey, the Florida panhandle has always been known as LA-Lower Alabama...and if you look at American history at one time it WAS projected to be part of Alabama, IIRC...
Things might change in Alabama (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/daylight_saving_time_could_be.html)...which will be somewhat awkward. We'll stay forward, but not back, effectively putting it in Eastern Time during late-autumn and winter, and then "back" to Central in spring, summer, and early-autumn. I don't think it's terribly fair to Florida's Panhandle between the Appalachicola River and the border with Alabama...it will be a bit of an hourly "exclave" for five months out of the year.
I live close to the Tennessee border, so that just adds a little confusion if I go north, but I guess they deal with it.
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the complaining about DST comes from early birds who don't understand that "but you can just get up earlier if you want your daylight" isn't a valid argument. Personally, as someone who would sleep in to 11 every day if given the chance, I welcome the "extra" daylight.
I don't understand the obsession some people have with solar noon being at a time other than 12:00. Seriously, who cares? We haven't used sundials in centuries.
It doesn't take me long to recover from the shift at all, especially since I don't actually lose an hour of sleep; since I don't have a set time I wake up at outside of work days, I just take the hour from being awake instead.
What makes any more sense than solar noon being roughly 12:00? We keep time based on the passage of the sun across the sky; the midpoint of our timekeeping system ought to correlate to the midpoint of the sun's path.
Would it make sense to have 6:00 PM be solar noon, because we don't use sundials anymore?
I was told that Phenix City, AL, which is just west of Columbus, GA, basically observes Eastern time, despite being in the Central Time Zone.
Does the Eastern Time Zone have a true "center"? Something like 75 degrees west? I'm a little past 72 degrees west here in central Connecticut.
Quote from: kphoger on March 09, 2015, 10:41:14 PM
What makes any more sense than solar noon being roughly 12:00? We keep time based on the passage of the sun across the sky; the midpoint of our timekeeping system ought to correlate to the midpoint of the sun's path.
Objectively, scientifically... nothing.
For practical human purposes... well, everyone's schedule is different. Yes, waking up in the dark sucks, but I'm rarely out of bed before 9 AM so this is never a problem for me. I would much rather have more sunlight during hours when I am actually awake as opposed to snoozing through it. So, put me in the "we should have DST year round" camp.
Quote from: 6a on March 09, 2015, 09:24:48 PM
This is the quirk of US geography. The western 2/3 of the eastern time zone is behind solar noon, obviously getting progressively worse going west, as the poster citing Cincinnati shows. The problem lies with New York City, DC, and the business world in general.
Cincinnati is bad, but Louisville and Indianapolis are worse, and TERRE HAUTE is worst of all!
The Wikipedia article about time in Indiana says the movement to maximize Eastern Daylight Time in that state is whipped up by the state's Big Business community, which wants Indiana synchronized with Wall Street. That makes no sense, because Wall Street is nowhere near Indiana. I'm from very close to Indiana, and the average working-class person in the area has a deep-seated disgust for Wall Street. We couldn't care less what Wall Street wants.
Also, rural farming areas should be as close to natural time as possible. A farmer's day is scheduled along the natural time cycle. With EDT in effect in Indiana, farmers miss activities that are scheduled for late in the evening.
Quote from: bandit957 on March 10, 2015, 12:58:25 AM
The Wikipedia article about time in Indiana says the movement to maximize Eastern Daylight Time in that state is whipped up by the state's Big Business community, which wants Indiana synchronized with Wall Street. That makes no sense, because Wall Street is nowhere near Indiana. I'm from very close to Indiana, and the average working-class person in the area has a deep-seated disgust for Wall Street. We couldn't care less what Wall Street wants.
Well, yes, it does make sense, if you're in big business (which I am not, BTW.) This exchange right here highlights the sharp divide in the "average working-class person in the area" and their disgust for Wall Street, and Wall Street itself which considers the area to be "flyover country".
Personally I'm with roadman - set it 1/2 hour off and stop fucking with it.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2015, 11:31:24 AM
Always found it curious that relatively small parts of some states are on a different time zone from the major population centers. One example I was not aware of is western Kansas, which is on Mountain time, not Central time (the time zone boundary is signed on I-70, which is how I learned that). Similarly, the western part of the Florida panhandle is on Central time.
Is this a good idea, or should states (with possible exception for very large states like Alaska and Texas) be on one time zone?
Shouldn't be a requirement. Ontario, OR shouldn't be forced into Pacific Time just because Oregon's population centers are in that time zone. They should be allowed to use the same time zone as nearby Boise, Mountain Time. Having the state line divide the time zone there would be problematic, especially for people in communities near the border like Payette and Fruitland, ID that do business in Ontario (the retail center of this area, partially because no sales tax in Oregon).
I spent my early childhood until 9 years old (through 3rd grade) in the Grand Rapids Michigan area, so the western end of the Eastern Time Zone.
I distinctly remember arriving at school during the winter (so in standard time) with it still being dark with only the hint of orange in the eastern sky-so my entire walk was in the dark. I also remember the oddity of it being even darker in April than in mid winter because of the change to DST.
I also remember falling asleep waiting for the fireworks at the high school baseball field on the 4th of July because it didn't get completely dark until after 10pm and they wouldn't light them off until it was completely dark. That first test shot (you know, the really loud one) was quite the wake up call, lol.
I lived in the suburbs of Chicago (eastern end of Central Time) from the summer between 3rd and 4th grade until I was 21. I am being completely truthful when I say that either way, standard or daylight time really didn't seem to make a difference to me then. The sun would be coming up just as I was leaving for school during the winter, and during the summer with daylight time it was getting dark just before 9. What I really do miss the most about the Central Time Zone either way was the fact that network prime time began at 7pm instead of 8pm, and the "late local news" was at 10pm. I can still remember the deep voice of the announcer on WBBM-TV Channel 2 as he said "Bill Kurtis, Walter Jacobsen, John Coughlin's weather, and Johnny Morris on sports: You are watching THE 10 o'clock news (and the coolest TV news theme song EVER). I could stay up and watch the late news and still be in bed by 10:30, or later on as a teenager go out and hit a party (lol).
Spending my entire adult life in eastern NC has meant a return to Eastern Time, which means the news is late, Monday Night Football quite often becomes Tuesday Morning Football. At least we are far enough east at 77 degrees west that the sunrises/sunsets seem to be closer to what I remember Chicago being like than what Grand Raids was like. As I type this at 6:58am the sky is brightening to the east, my 15 year old is on the bus to school. It really seems to me that being at the eastern edge of a time zone makes any time shifts easier than being at the western edge of a time zone, at least that has been my experience throughout my life.
I lol'd when I read the majority of this thread at the people who were complaining about the loss of sleep. Not out of disrespect, but because I was working night shift when the time change happened so I only had to work 11 hours instead of my normal 12. By a quirk of my 2 week shift cycle I just happen to be on the shift that always works the short night, and always gets the extra hour of sleep in November as I am on dayshift that weekend. The shift that worked this weekend dayshift always gets screwed out of that hour of sleep in March and always gets stuck working 13 hours in November. I used to be on that shift, so I felt their pain as they came in whining Sunday morning.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 09, 2015, 11:34:32 PM
I was told that Phenix City, AL, which is just west of Columbus, GA, basically observes Eastern time, despite being in the Central Time Zone.
....
They do, even the city government (but not state or federal offices; I suppose it makes sense that state offices would be on the same time as Montgomery). Phenix City is the easternmost town in Alabama and it's directly across the river from Columbus. They simply find it easier to operate on the same time as the much larger city across the state line. (If it's like it used to be, people head over to Columbus constantly for things like buying gas, which used to be substantially cheaper in Georgia. Don't know if that's still the case.)
Quote from: hbelkins on March 09, 2015, 04:38:11 PM
What really stinks is being on the eastern edge of a time zone during standard time. If it's more or less dark by 5:30 p.m. in Elizabethtown or Monticello, Ky., that means it's more or less dark by 4:30 p.m. in Leitchfield or Albany.
Who really cares if the time is off "normal" or the sun isn't directly overhead at noon? I don't.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 09, 2015, 12:23:32 PM
Getting light later in the morning is great, if you don't care at all about millions of kids at higher risk for accidents and attacks while waiting for school buses in the dark. But that's insignificant compared to adults wanting more daylight in the evening.
Isn't this OMG FEAR!!!! instead of a real legitimate safety concern?
I can hear the blades of the helicopter parent spinning
Quote from: bandit957 on March 10, 2015, 12:58:25 AM
Quote from: 6a on March 09, 2015, 09:24:48 PM
.
Also, rural farming areas should be as close to natural time as possible. A farmer's day is scheduled along the natural time cycle.
Then farmers shouldn't care what the artificial time is
Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2015, 10:00:51 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the complaining about DST comes from early birds who don't understand that "but you can just get up earlier if you want your daylight" isn't a valid argument. Personally, as someone who would sleep in to 11 every day if given the chance, I welcome the "extra" daylight.
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the support for DST comes from late risers who don't understand that "but you can just get up later if you want your daylight" isn't a valid argument. Personally, as someone who has to be at work at the reasonable hour of 8 am, I welcome the "extra" daylight in the morning.
(The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our sun, but in ourselves.)
Let's set the clocks eight hours off, so people who work graveyard shift are no longer frustrated by having to sleep during the daylight hours.
Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2015, 10:00:51 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the complaining about DST comes from early birds who don't understand that "but you can just get up earlier if you want your daylight" isn't a valid argument. Personally, as someone who would sleep in to 11 every day if given the chance, I welcome the "extra" daylight.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 08:10:44 AMI wouldn't be surprised if much of the support for DST comes from late risers who don't understand that "but you can just get up later if you want your daylight" isn't a valid argument. Personally, as someone who has to be at work at the reasonable hour of 8 am, I welcome the "extra" daylight in the morning.
I find that it is mostly the other way around, though I have met some who fit Pete's description.
It's the early risers who don't care about darker mornings as they get up before the sun (~6am solar time) anyway in Spring/Fall, and late risers who need the dawn to help them awake if they want to not be out of sync all day.
One idea I've seen floating around would be to combine Pacific and Mountain time zones into "Western time", which would be UTC-7 year-round (Pacific Daylight/Mountain Standard). Eastern would absorb Central and be UTC-5 year-round (Central Daylight/Eastern Standard). It might mean tweaking the boundary between the two in some places.
In the spirit of tolerance, we should all honor the personal choices of every individual to choose his or her own time zone regardless of their geography.
I'll be using the Saudi reset-at-dawn system.
Quote from: elsmere241 on March 10, 2015, 10:24:59 AM
One idea I've seen floating around would be to combine Pacific and Mountain time zones into "Western time", which would be UTC-7 year-round (Pacific Daylight/Mountain Standard). Eastern would absorb Central and be UTC-5 year-round (Central Daylight/Eastern Standard). It might mean tweaking the boundary between the two in some places.
That'd mean a two-hour time difference between western and eastern Nebraska, or anywhere else along the Mountain/Central boundary.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 10:31:06 AM
In the spirit of tolerance, we should all honor the personal choices of every individual to choose his or her own time zone regardless of their geography.
I'll be using the Saudi reset-at-dawn system.
I thought they reset at dusk.
A friend sent this to me. It's today's lesson in "How to play with numbers":
How much money does Daylight Saving Time cost the U.S. economy in lost productivity?
http://www.govtech.com/question-of-the-day/Question-of-the-Day-for-03102015.html?elqaid=25973&elqat=1&elqTrackId=1D37FE575F4ACB4CA88C4926E0A654E1
When you click through and see the accompanying reports, it acknowledges Hawaii & Arizona as not playing the DST game...but then excludes them from the results. Those two states would be a good control group, especially if they could say heart attacks didn't go up or internet usage didn't rise.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 10:31:06 AM
In the spirit of tolerance, we should all honor the personal choices of every individual to choose his or her own time zone regardless of their geography.
I'll be using the Saudi reset-at-dawn system.
Sounds like the time Kramer felt DST wasn't arriving soon enough and turned his watch ahead on his own.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 08:10:44 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2015, 10:00:51 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the complaining about DST comes from early birds who don't understand that "but you can just get up earlier if you want your daylight" isn't a valid argument. Personally, as someone who would sleep in to 11 every day if given the chance, I welcome the "extra" daylight.
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the support for DST comes from late risers who don't understand that "but you can just get up later if you want your daylight" isn't a valid argument. Personally, as someone who has to be at work at the reasonable hour of 8 am, I welcome the "extra" daylight in the morning.
(The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our sun, but in ourselves.)
Why waste all your daylight at work? In my perfect world we'd all work when it was dark out and the majority of people would have free time when it was light out. When I work 2-11 it was great in the winter, I had daylight hours free.
Quote from: elsmere241 on March 10, 2015, 11:48:52 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 10:31:06 AM
In the spirit of tolerance, we should all honor the personal choices of every individual to choose his or her own time zone regardless of their geography.
I'll be using the Saudi reset-at-dawn system.
I thought they reset at dusk.
From Saudi Aramco World,
https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/196902/dinner.at.when.htm (https://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/196902/dinner.at.when.htm)
Quote
The basis of all time keeping in Saudi Arabia used to be Arabic time, the traditional method of telling the hour. Geared to the sun, it was very simple: every day at sunset you simply adjusted your watch to 12 o'clock–12 midnight, that is. If everybody had done it, there would have been no problem.
But then, unfortunately, some nameless foreigner introduced western sun time. This, in its way, was also simple. Every day at sunset, you set your watch to read 6 o'clock instead of 12 o'clock. Western sun time was probably devised so members of the foreign community could keep some sort of relationship with the time zones of their home countries although local wits say it was because the British Embassy couldn't bear the thought of serving afternoon tea at 11 o'clock.
and this interesting bit:
Quote
Arabic time probably has its roots in the common and most logical system of timekeeping used most places in the world until about AD 1600. In those days, daytime was divided into 12 equal parts, and nightime also into 12 equal parts. Depending on the season, hours used in the daytime were either longer or shorter than hours used during the night. The sundials and astrolabes used as timekeepers were calibrated to divide into 12 regardless of the seasons. Thus, the same sundial could divide both a long summer daylight period and a short winter day equally into 12. The "day" was made up of 24 hours and began at sunset. Twelve hours of darkness preceded 12 hours of daylight, although the hours in the daytime were not the same length as the nighttime hours.
Quote from: oscar on March 10, 2015, 10:38:29 AM
Quote from: elsmere241 on March 10, 2015, 10:24:59 AM
One idea I've seen floating around would be to combine Pacific and Mountain time zones into "Western time", which would be UTC-7 year-round (Pacific Daylight/Mountain Standard). Eastern would absorb Central and be UTC-5 year-round (Central Daylight/Eastern Standard). It might mean tweaking the boundary between the two in some places.
That'd mean a two-hour time difference between western and eastern Nebraska, or anywhere else along the Mountain/Central boundary.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/daylight-saving-time-is-terrible-heres-a-simple-plan-to-fix-it/281075/?utm_source=btn-facebook-ctrl2
Oops - I misread the article. Western time would be UTC-6, or Mountain Daylight.
QuoteThis year, Americans on Eastern Standard Time should set their clocks back one hour (like normal), Americans on Central and Rocky Mountain time do nothing, and Americans on Pacific time should set their clocks forward one hour. After that we won't change our clocks again–no more daylight saving. This will result in just two time zones for the continental United States. The east and west coasts will only be one hour apart. Anyone who lives on one coast and does business with the other can imagine the uncountable benefits of living in a two-time-zone nation (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).
Quote from: elsmere241 on March 10, 2015, 11:48:52 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 10:31:06 AM
In the spirit of tolerance, we should all honor the personal choices of every individual to choose his or her own time zone regardless of their geography.
I'll be using the Saudi reset-at-dawn system.
I thought they reset at dusk.
Sorry, that's what I meant. I'm in a fragile mental state due to the harsh stress of coping with the time change that we also did every other year without any serious issue.
As we speak, the legislature in New Mexico is debating getting rid of Mountain Daylight Time and replacing it with Central Standard Time. Nearly everybody here detests changing times twice a year, so it might very well pass into law, it's a nonpartisan issue. We would be like Arizona and keep one time throughout the year.
Seriously. Are certain people just bitching about DST for the sake of bitching or is there a legitimate point being made? I don't see a point being made from how I can tell.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 08:10:44 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2015, 10:00:51 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the complaining about DST comes from early birds who don't understand that "but you can just get up earlier if you want your daylight" isn't a valid argument. Personally, as someone who would sleep in to 11 every day if given the chance, I welcome the "extra" daylight.
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the support for DST comes from late risers who don't understand that "but you can just get up later if you want your daylight" isn't a valid argument. Personally, as someone who has to be at work at the reasonable hour of 8 am, I welcome the "extra" daylight in the morning.
(The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our sun, but in ourselves.)
I can't think of anyone who works a standard shift who would be asleep for the end of the daylight (unlike with the start). Personally, I like natural light, and don't like having it all wasted at work where I'm in a building illuminated by fluorescent all day long (though at least it isn't incandescent).
It's not wasted, trust me. I'm out using it.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on March 10, 2015, 07:45:38 PM
Seriously. Are certain people just bitching about DST for the sake of bitching or is there a legitimate point being made? I don't see a point being made from how I can tell.
You should read the comments sections of the inevitable newspaper columns about this that run EVERY SINGLE TIME CHANGE. They are pretty much exactly those here. It makes me feel like DST was invented to distract us from engaging in debate on issues of real importance before the internet took over that job.
Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2015, 10:00:51 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the complaining about DST comes from early birds who don't understand that "but you can just get up earlier if you want your daylight" isn't a valid argument. Personally, as someone who would sleep in to 11 every day if given the chance, I welcome the "extra" daylight.
More to the point here is what's driving whom. "11 AM", or any number assigned to a particular time of day, is a construction of society that has no meaning to our natural circadian rhythms. And yet, because of how we live our lives, we obsess over what number is on the clock to the point where this has more impact on when we sleep than what the sun is doing.
In a world without clocks, no one would have this problem. You would wake up according to where the sun was and that would naturally gradually shift over the course of the year. But because we have imposed these artificial clocks upon ourselves, we keep forcing our sleep schedules to constantly bend in ways that are unnatural in order to synchronize with the artificial clock.
When I wake up is largely dictated by when I go to sleep. This is usually at about 1-2 AM, simply because of habit. I am not always 100% happy with this habit, especially in winter I find myself wishing I could wake up sooner to maximize my exposure to daylight. But doing that would require shifting habits to go to bed sooner. Which is rather difficult when you have people in your life who sometimes want to be out into the wee hours of the morning and will give you grief if you try to tell them you want to be in bed earlier than that, and a flexible work schedule that doesn't care if you wake up late and therefore gives you no reason to not do so.
The flipside to this, of course, is people whose jobs or school require they get up early and therefore are waking up in the dark rather than sleeping away sunlight.
So the best thing to do then is perhaps to examine what forces are driving our schedules and seek to shift things if we are made to wake up too early or too late, if at all possible.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 09:51:07 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on March 10, 2015, 07:45:38 PM
Seriously. Are certain people just bitching about DST for the sake of bitching or is there a legitimate point being made? I don't see a point being made from how I can tell.
You should read the comments sections of the inevitable newspaper columns about this that run EVERY SINGLE TIME CHANGE. They are pretty much exactly those here. It makes me feel like DST was invented to distract us from engaging in debate on issues of real importance before the internet took over that job.
Sounds like a South Park episode. Everyone will be worried/confused while something major is going on.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 10:31:06 AM
In the spirit of tolerance, we should all honor the personal choices of every individual to choose his or her own time zone regardless of their geography.
I'll be using the Saudi reset-at-dawn system.
I just remembered I have an app that tells me the current date and time under the French Republican Calendar (an utterly useless app, to be sure, but mildly amusing from time to time when I deal with French people). Now that one REALLY underscores how time is a human construct.
As I type this, the current date at my location in the French Republican Calendar is 19 Ventôse an CCXXIII and the current time is 9:36–note there are ten hours in a day, 100 minutes in an hour, and 100 seconds in a minute. It freaks some people out if you tell them it's 8:73.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2015, 10:28:33 PM
I just remembered I have an app that tells me the current date and time under the French Republican Calendar (an utterly useless app, to be sure, but mildly amusing from time to time when I deal with French people). Now that one REALLY underscores how time is a human construct.
As I type this, the current date at my location in the French Republican Calendar is 19 Ventôse an CCXXIII and the current time is 9:36–note there are ten hours in a day, 100 minutes in an hour, and 100 seconds in a minute. It freaks some people out if you tell them it's 8:73.
current Julian day number and fraction of a day: 2457092.48056
Not completely useless, the day number is used by astronomers. The fraction of a day, not so often.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on March 10, 2015, 07:45:38 PMSeriously. Are certain people just bitching about DST for the sake of bitching or is there a legitimate point being made? I don't see a point being made from how I can tell.
DST gripes are mostly not about DST per se, but how our artificial social time (when society chooses to do something, rather than the arbitrary number on the clock) relates to the natural solar time. Similar questions occur when discussing whether, say, NM should be on Mountain or Central Time or whether Western Europe (esp GB, France, Spain) should be on London or Berlin time (WET or CET).
Summer time is not an issue from May to August, when its fairly pointless as there's plenty of daytime to go around anyway. September-October and March-April, however there are issues as there's enough daylight for both ends of the working day to have some daylight, but which end deserves more light? Are we usefully using the daylight between 6-7am or would it be more useful between 6-7pm. Some think 'no' as they are asleep, some think 'no' as they are awake (and don't want to do something before work, like errands that they do after work and then complain that its too dark for the leisure activity they wanted to do). Some think 'yes' as they are asleep but they need that daylight sleep to finish their sleep cycle, some think 'yes' because they do something with it.
Can we transcend the vagaries of our physical location in the universe, the material nature of our bodies? Can we live our lives led by arbitrary numbers that we made up, rather than the day/night cycle that exists? That is the philosophical difference between Modernity and Post-Modernity, and so an important question for us in the transition between the two Ages. In fact, this question (while it could also be phrased as the seemingly inane 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?') of the interaction between the material and mystical, body and brain, is perhaps the most important philosophical question ever.
As agricultural people, we tended to work fewer hours in winter and more in the summer to compensate for the changing amounts of light throughout the year. As industrialised people we have tried to transcend the seasons - perhaps that hasn't worked.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2015, 10:28:33 PMI just remembered I have an app that tells me the current date and time under the French Republican Calendar (an utterly useless app, to be sure, but mildly amusing from time to time when I deal with French people). Now that one REALLY underscores how time is a human construct.
Actually, the French Republican Calendar underscores how time isn't a human construct, only how we measure it is - it totally collapsed as a system. If the clock/calender was just something arbitrary, then it wouldn't have mattered (it was the calender that killed it with its 10 day week).
Arguably, for sure, what number is on the clock is meaningless. But we give those numbers meaning. And while where what number is where in the day/night periods is totally meaningless, when we give the number '8' the meaning of 'start work', it does matter where it is in the day/night ebb and flow as our awake/sleep pattern is linked to that day/night pattern. Do we want to work at the end of the day, or the beginning? When do we wake up in relation to dawn? When do we go to bed in relation to dusk?
These questions were roughly sorted - the work day was near, but not quite at, the beginning of the day and the middle of the work day was after (solar) noon, starting two-three hours after equinox dawn and ending an hour before. We've always been a species that is awake from around dawn to sometime after dusk. As such, our moves in the last 100 years to make our social day start earlier with respect to the sun than they did before (not just the shifting of timezones and DST, but the earlier start times) seem silly.
I slept until 11 am Sunday. I have no right to complain about "losing an hour"
Quote from: english si on March 11, 2015, 07:09:27 AM
....
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2015, 10:28:33 PMI just remembered I have an app that tells me the current date and time under the French Republican Calendar (an utterly useless app, to be sure, but mildly amusing from time to time when I deal with French people). Now that one REALLY underscores how time is a human construct.
Actually, the French Republican Calendar underscores how time isn't a human construct, only how we measure it is - it totally collapsed as a system. If the clock/calender was just something arbitrary, then it wouldn't have mattered (it was the calender that killed it with its 10 day week).
Arguably, for sure, what number is on the clock is meaningless. But we give those numbers meaning. ....
That's what I meant by "human construct." It's indisputable (except maybe to people who utterly fear and despise science?) that the Earth makes a complete rotation on its axis at a particular interval and that it makes a complete revolution around the Sun at another particular interval. What you call those intervals, and indeed what significance you ascribe to them, is the "human construct." That is, there's nothing to say you couldn't define what we think of as a "year" as consisting of two orbits around the Sun (though I don't know why you'd do that). Our concepts of the length of a year and the number of days in the year are pretty reasonable ones based on the periods of revolution and rotation. What I meant by a "human construct" is how you divide those periods further.
There's nothing inherently "necessary" about dividing a day into 24 hours, or a year into the months we're used to using–indeed, I think there's a good argument that the months as we're used to them are arbitrary and unnecessary complicated. The "Shire Calendar" discussed in the appendices to
The Return of the King showed a lot of logic through the use of a "blank day" not assigned to a standard weekday, which allowed every month to be the same length and eliminated the issue of every year starting on a different day of the week. The French Republican Calendar's use of the five Sansculottides/les jours complémentaires (six in leap year) was a stab at this sort of thing but not quite the same. Of course in the real world there are some major religious objections from people who feel there's something sacred about the concept of a seven-day week. The French Republican Calendar did away with the seven-day week in favor of the ten-day décade (this is one of the things that made it unpopular because it meant fewer days off work) and, as noted in my prior post, divided the day into 10 hours of 100 minutes each, with a minute consisting of 100 seconds. As I type this sentence at 9:21 EDT, the time under the Republican Calendar is 3:89!
People who dislike DST as being illogical ought to support calendar reform efforts that would even out the months and have a standard calendar for every year (say, every year starts on Sunday and ends on Saturday, including leap years). Of course this would be potentially confusing for people whose birthdays or anniversaries change dates, but the same thing happened with the shift to the Gregorian calendar and everyone eventually adjusted OK. (Thomas Jefferson's birthday was April 2, 1743, Old Style, and he insisted on that date appearing on his grave marker, yet for some reason the University of Virginia observes Founder's Day on April 13, which was his birthday New Style. George Washington's birthday was February 11, 1731, Old Style, but until the Monday holiday law, the US government observed his birthday on February 22 because the New Style date was February 22, 1732.)
One way to see for yourself that how we define time, including the time of day, is a human construct is to watch animals. Animals clearly have some sense of time. Animals who are creatures of routine, say for being fed, will show up at or near the same "time" (from a human standpoint) every day, though obviously they have no idea that we consider it 5:30 or whatever. But they also don't know we set the clocks ahead last Sunday and for a while after the "time change" there's a very good chance they'll show up at the "wrong" time. There's a feral cat who visits our deck every day looking for food. All winter she's shown up around 5:30 PM. This week she's been showing up at 6:30. Of course that's the "same time" if you don't know the clocks were set ahead (5:30 EST is 6:30 EDT). We first saw the cat last July and I don't remember how she adjusted last November when the clocks went back.
Here's the cat a few weeks ago....she runs away to our neighbors' deck if I so much as throw the bolt to unlock the door, but she comes back after I close the door. She seems to be terrified of any human contact, though she's happy to take food and is always looking in the window while eating, I guess to see where we are.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FA79CB8E1-DFA5-4703-A5D3-57158F0DF141_zpss4iqzeuf.jpg&hash=f04a48527e30e6d238368ab73d4c440bb5339e65)
Some things just change over time. Just because something has always been one way. Businesses used to be closed or had short hours on Sunday and overnight, and now many are open those times. Why does the sun have to be straight up at noon? Who says?
Presumed length of the year under the Gregorian calendar is 365.2425 days, while actual length is 365.2422 days. We paper over this difference by using intercalary "leap seconds," which is one reason some timekeeping devices will appear to drift from the actual time. The DST change is a useful opportunity for resynchronizing old-tech devices (unlike, say, computer and smartphone clocks, which usually get their time over the Internet) so that they all change to the same minute at the top of the minute. Even electronic devices like quartz wristwatches will show time drift due to temperature differences.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 09:21:32 AMOf course in the real world there are some major religious objections from people who feel there's something sacred about the concept of a seven-day week.
It wasn't that that got the French to change their minds - it was that humans are suited to 7 day work-rest cycles, not 10 day ones. They changed to decades for religious reasons, being religiously (and viciously) against even the hint of religion. But the decades were scrapped entirely after 10 years, even though the calendar remained for another 3, because the decades did not work. The Soviets (for similar religious reasons) tried similar overhauling the 7 day cycle, only to find out that the best results occur with 7 day cycles...
You can label/divide stuff how you want, but you cannot then change your schedule to match those divisions and labels if you do so ignoring the natural rhythms we have/have to put up with.
QuotePeople who dislike DST as being illogical ought to support calendar reform efforts that would even out the months and have a standard calendar for every year (say, every year starts on Sunday and ends on Saturday, including leap years).
I'm sorry, that makes no logical sense as an argument...
QuoteOne way to see for yourself that how we define time, including the time of day, is a human construct is to watch animals. Animals clearly have some sense of time. Animals who are creatures of routine, say for being fed, will show up at or near the same "time" (from a human standpoint) every day, though obviously they have no idea that we consider it 5:30 or whatever. But they also don't know we set the clocks ahead last Sunday and for a while after the "time change" there's a very good chance they'll show up at the "wrong" time.
Which suggests that animals are wired up to the earth's rotational position, which suggests that we are too...
Quote from: texaskdog on March 11, 2015, 10:13:34 AMWho says?
No one but the straw men of DST supporters who don't have a real argument for not having the sun straight up (or roughly so) at noon!
Quote from: english si on March 11, 2015, 11:57:18 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 09:21:32 AMOf course in the real world there are some major religious objections from people who feel there's something sacred about the concept of a seven-day week.
It wasn't that that got the French to change their minds - it was that humans are suited to 7 day work-rest cycles, not 10 day ones. They changed to decades for religious reasons, being religiously (and viciously) against even the hint of religion. But the decades were scrapped entirely after 10 years, even though the calendar remained for another 3, because the decades did not work. The Soviets (for similar religious reasons) tried similar overhauling the 7 day cycle, only to find out that the best results occur with 7 day cycles...
I didn't say that was what caused the French to scrap the ten-day cycle. Notice I mentioned the unpopularity of having one day off every ten days instead of one day every seven. My reference to religious objections was in the context of the various proposals that still circulate for calendar reform.
Quote from: english si on March 11, 2015, 11:57:18 AMQuote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 09:21:32 AMPeople who dislike DST as being illogical ought to support calendar reform efforts that would even out the months and have a standard calendar for every year (say, every year starts on Sunday and ends on Saturday, including leap years).
I'm sorry, that makes no logical sense as an argument...
I don't think it's illogical at all. It seems to me that if someone thinks the simple changing of a clock twice a year is an illogical thing, then having a calendar with a mish-mash of months of uneven lengths and years that start on different days every year should be something such people would find even more illogical. Other than tradition, there's no real reason why February should have 28 days instead of 30 (those days coming at the expense of two of the 31-day months, of course).
Theoretically, if the months were all the same length it would do away with the nuisance of turning the date ahead on your watch several times a year, though I suppose the use of a "blank day" would result in having to turn the day and date backwards once a year....
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 09:21:32 AM
Of course in the real world there are some major religious objections from people who feel there's something sacred about the concept of a seven-day week.
...
People who dislike DST as being illogical ought to support calendar reform efforts that would even out the months and have a standard calendar for every year (say, every year starts on Sunday and ends on Saturday, including leap years).
I recall reading (hard copy book in a library, ages ago) about one such proposal, which used one (or two, in leap years) "zero days" each year, not assigned to one of the traditional seven days of the week, to keep the calendar stable from year to year. Much of the book recounted the author's futile arguments with some religious leader, who felt that tampering with the traditional seven-day weekly cycle meant that people would no longer be able to respect the Sabbath on the same day of the week every year, since their religion could not let them ignore the "zero days".
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 09:21:32 AM
Of course this would be potentially confusing for people whose birthdays or anniversaries change dates, but the same thing happened with the shift to the Gregorian calendar and everyone eventually adjusted OK. (Thomas Jefferson's birthday was April 2, 1743, Old Style, and he insisted on that date appearing on his grave marker, yet for some reason the University of Virginia observes Founder's Day on April 13, which was his birthday New Style. George Washington's birthday was February 11, 1731, Old Style, but until the Monday holiday law, the US government observed his birthday on February 22 because the New Style date was February 22, 1732.)
Didn't hurt that Pope Gregory put his imprimatur on the changeover. But that didn't work with Orthodox Christians, who didn't pay attention to the Pope in Rome, and continued using Old Style.
Quote from: oscar on March 11, 2015, 12:36:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 09:21:32 AM
Of course in the real world there are some major religious objections from people who feel there's something sacred about the concept of a seven-day week.
...
People who dislike DST as being illogical ought to support calendar reform efforts that would even out the months and have a standard calendar for every year (say, every year starts on Sunday and ends on Saturday, including leap years).
I recall reading (hard copy book in a library, ages ago) about one such proposal, which used one (or two, in leap years) "zero days" each year, not assigned to one of the traditional seven days of the week, to keep the calendar stable from year to year. Much of the book recounted the author's futile arguments with some religious leader, who felt that tampering with the traditional seven-day weekly cycle meant that people would no longer be able to respect the Sabbath on the same day of the week every year, since their religion could not let them ignore the "zero days".
....
This is similar to how Tolkien's "Shire Calendar" worked (see below). During the 1950s the UN supported a proposal that would have used days outside the seven-day weekly cycle, but some religious groups' (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, at a minimum) opposition helped doom the effort.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcorecanvas.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ftheonering-0188db0e%2Fgallery%2Foriginal%2Fshire_calendar.jpg&hash=d184d86617e3738265dd1948764f4cfbeead2ec0)
The French Republican Calendar had a number of other problems aside from those already mentioned in this thread. Among other things, the first day of the year was to be the vernal equinox in Paris; related to that, because the vernal equinox doesn't fall on the same day every year, figuring out when leap year was supposed to happen was a messy endeavor, to the point where the law establishing the calendar actually conflicted with itself!
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 12:18:07 PMQuote from: english si on March 11, 2015, 11:57:18 AMQuote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 09:21:32 AMPeople who dislike DST as being illogical ought to support calendar reform efforts that would even out the months and have a standard calendar for every year (say, every year starts on Sunday and ends on Saturday, including leap years).
I'm sorry, that makes no logical sense as an argument...
I don't think it's illogical at all. It seems to me that if someone thinks the simple changing of a clock twice a year is an illogical thing, then having a calendar with a mish-mash of months of uneven lengths and years that start on different days every year should be something such people would find even more illogical. Other than tradition, there's no real reason why February should have 28 days instead of 30 (those days coming at the expense of two of the 31-day months, of course).
Nope, still a massive non sequitor, even ignoring the straw man reason that you give for why DST is not liked*. I don't know how you got from "don't change the clocks" to "radically overhaul the calender", from "clock time match solar time" to "every month equal length", from "I don't like getting up in the dark in October" to "dates shouldn't change day of the week from year to year". The arguments are, at best, unrelated, at worst, totally the opposite.
*Those who hate DST changes because it is a change are nearly always, IME, pushing for year round DST, not pushing for Standard Time year round. Mostly as they stupidly think that DST is the default time.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion!
I, myself, have no beef with the concept of DST, just the implementation lasts for too long, with March being about a week too early (or three weeks in the case of North America) and October being about 5 weeks too late (November about 6 weeks too late). DST is fine when the morning time isn't being used, but when dawn is at 0742 (last day of BST in London this year), that hour is being used. 0644 (first day back on GMT) is bad enough, but nearly 8 o'clock dawns makes mid-late October feel like December-without-all-the-lights around here.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 02:18:34 PMYou are certainly entitled to your opinion!
Is this a way of saying "I have no logical explaination of the conclusions I came to"?
Quote from: english si on March 11, 2015, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 02:18:34 PMYou are certainly entitled to your opinion!
Is this a way of saying "I have no logical explaination of the conclusions I came to"?
No, it was a way of saying "we will agree to disagree." I find what I said perfectly logical. The fact that you think it isn't does not change my position on that.
Getting up at the crack of dawn is supposed to mean getting up unusually early. Oh! that I were so lucky, to get up at the crack of dawn. I was just starting to, and then DST pulled the rug out. Spring break is next week, and I arrived to work in full darkness this morning. What poppycock!
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2015, 04:00:37 PM
Getting up at the crack of dawn is supposed to mean getting up unusually early. Oh! that I were so lucky, to get up at the crack of dawn. I was just starting to, and then DST pulled the rug out. Spring break is next week, and I arrived to work in full darkness this morning. What poppycock!
I look at it this way: you've already got a pretty sweet life if you get to sleep late. Don't be greedy and also take the morning light from those of us who don't.
Now Texas is looking at a legislative move to scrap DST.
http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/texas/article/Lawmaker-hopes-to-end-Daylight-Savings-Time-in-6125661.php?cmpid=twitter-mobile
Essentially this means the entire part of the state in the Central Time Zone would shift to Mountain time in the summer, and the little sliver that includes El Paso would become a PDT island. This proposal needs some serious thinking-through.
I would like New Jersey to abandon DST to show its independence from New York and Philadelphia.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 11, 2015, 09:34:17 PM
I would like New Jersey to abandon DST to show its independence from New York and Philadelphia.
It has a constitution that already accomplishes that.
Quote from: corco on March 08, 2015, 05:00:44 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 08, 2015, 04:43:10 PM
I wish they would pick one or the other (I don't care which) and stick with it. Now I have to spend the next six weeks waiting for my internal clock to sync with the external clock.
Maybe not six weeks, but people who act like a one hour daylight savings time jump is the same thing as getting in a car or plane to drive to another time zone don't get it.
It's substantially harder to execute your current, daily routine and have it shift by an hour than it is to do something different in another time zone. I work 8 to 5 Monday through Friday and am pretty hard wired to get up at 6:50 AM every morning, etc, if I am at home in my own routine. Shifting everything backward by an hour is hard. If I drive to South Dakota, I'm off the routine so I don't even notice an hour time change (typically if traveling, I can go up to three hours in either direction without really noticing a difference, 7 or 8 before I'd consider myself "jet-lagged"), but an hour change at home is hard.
You nailed it. I have no idea why I'm the first person to point this out after 100 posts. I tell people every time change that it was easier for me to adjust 12 hours when I went to Vietnam than it is for me to adjust one hour. When there is a huge shift from traveling, your body has to compensate and adjust quickly, which is easier to do since your routine is thrown off anyway. But with a one hour change, it's near impossible for me to adjust because it's not too far off from my typical routine, but enough to be annoying.
I usually go to bed around 11 pm. Or at least I did last week. Now it is 11:15 and I'm still up because my body thinks it is only 10:15. So I won't be able to sleep until 12 midnight DST to line back up with 11 pm EST.
However, I still have to get up at the same time, 7 am. So now I am getting only 7 hours of sleep instead of 8. I won't be able to get back to eight hours of sleep until I get sleep deprived enough to fall asleep early, which probably won't happen until next week.
Quote from: english si on March 11, 2015, 02:25:35 PM
I, myself, have no beef with the concept of DST, just the implementation lasts for too long, with March being about a week too early (or three weeks in the case of North America) and October being about 5 weeks too late (November about 6 weeks too late). DST is fine when the morning time isn't being used, but when dawn is at 0742 (last day of BST in London this year), that hour is being used. 0644 (first day back on GMT) is bad enough, but nearly 8 o'clock dawns makes mid-late October feel like December-without-all-the-lights around here.
This, this, this. I'm fine with DST when it is properly aligned. However, due to bullshit lobbies, we now have unnecessary weeks where it's dark in the morning when it doesn't need to be.
iPhone
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2015, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 09, 2015, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 08, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
I know a lot of people don't like this, but I wouldn't mind if DST stuck around all year. Yeah, it would get light later in the morning, but the fact that the sun is still high in the sky makes me happy.
Getting light later in the morning is great, if you don't care at all about millions of kids at higher risk for accidents and attacks while waiting for school buses in the dark. But that's insignificant compared to adults wanting more daylight in the evening.
Site stats proving that.
For the most part, the majority of attempted luring incidents occur in the afternoon as kids come home from school, which are almost always in daylight, year around.
Here is a site http://www.hoosiersforcentraltime.com/archives/oldweb/index.html that has done a lot of research into the risks of later sunrises
Quote from: roadman65 on March 09, 2015, 01:05:07 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 09, 2015, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: cl94 on March 08, 2015, 05:41:51 PM
I know a lot of people don't like this, but I wouldn't mind if DST stuck around all year. Yeah, it would get light later in the morning, but the fact that the sun is still high in the sky makes me happy.
Getting light later in the morning is great, if you don't care at all about millions of kids at higher risk for accidents and attacks while waiting for school buses in the dark. But that's insignificant compared to adults wanting more daylight in the evening.
Then change the school sessions then.
BTW Daylight or Standard time kids in Orlando go to school in the dark!
During the shortest days of the year, you are not going to be able to avoid school travel in the dark, but the rest of the year you can.
In South Bend, sunrise on Monday 3/9 was 8:08 a.m. That just seems ridiculously late to me. If you want to change school sessions to avoid kids waiting for morning buses in the dark then you're having schools start at 9am and possibly later.
My school district does have the elementary schools start at 9am to avoid kids being out in dark mornings, but due to bus transportation the different levels require staggered start times so the middle schools start at 8:20 and the high school at 7:40, so there are buses out in the dark during the majority of the school year.
It is real, but the disruption of having to change schedule in place (as opposed to being off one's normal routine while travelling) is easy to exaggerate. What would you do if you had to catch an early morning flight and wanted to be sure you had enough sleep beforehand?
^^ Id est, what would you do when your normal routine is disrupted for travel? ...
In answer to the question, when I need to leave early (for me, it's been by car and not by plane for the past eight years), I usually end up going to bed later than usual. Besides packing in the evening, my mind also is usually racing with details of the trip and, ironically, worry that I'll sleep through my alarm. But that disruption is easier to overcome than simply having to wake up an hour earlier every day. Even when I've traveled to Europe, the jet lag was gone after the first day of tiredness. Even when I've traveled to Mexico (long trip, same timezone) and our schedule has meant getting up an hour earlier than usual every day (as it often does), that's easy to adjust to because the setting is different. But suddenly switching from getting up with the sun to getting up in the dark while all other cues remain the same makes me groggy in the morning for weeks. Part of it is that I'm groggy when getting up in the dark no matter what, and had just gotten past it with the coming of spring, but part of it is that my mind takes some time to stop thinking of my night as "shifted" rather than "shorter".
Quote from: corco on March 08, 2015, 05:00:44 PM
Maybe not six weeks, but people who act like a one hour daylight savings time jump is the same thing as getting in a car or plane to drive to another time zone don't get it.
It's substantially harder to execute your current, daily routine and have it shift by an hour than it is to do something different in another time zone.
See, I don't find it terribly difficult because I have a rather limited routine when it comes to waking, eating, working, sleeping. This occurs while dealing with (usually) time-zone differences about every week or two, then maybe I'll have some in the same time zone. I fly home every weekend and catch back up to my time zone; with kids and social expectations, you're kind of forced back into things. I might wake up early one week because the operating hours I'm at are an hour earlier (or later), and I might work one hour later one day and not the next. I might have a four-hour day or a twelve-hour work day, it depends on scheduling and circumstances, or travel requirements. The gaps between
awake - eat - work - eat - work - play - eat - work/play/lazy - sleep vary almost every day.
It's a routine because I do pretty much the same things, but they're always shifted 1-2 hours away regardless of time zone, just the circumstances I find myself in for work. It doesn't really seem to bother me much although there's times I'm up at 3am for an early flight, later for a later flight the next week. So my sleeping patterns are a bit off, but I shake if off after two cups of coffee; I generally sleep well, unless I'm ill or at an extremely noisy environment. I was never the picture of perfect health, but I personally don't feel as out of sync with an hour time change, and I haven't been told by a doctor that I'm making things much worse. My job does wear some people out, and some people like having routine, because they know when they can expect leisure, familiarity, and their gut tells them it's preferable; we're hard-wired to seek comfort and in our hierarchy of needs, that sort of environment helps.
Personally, I like the extra light in the evening, because that's when I can make more use it. I think I'm happier for that; it's a nice feeling to see the sunset and nature's colors from someplace other than your office window, or knowing you've made something out of your work day.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 10, 2015, 08:10:44 AMPersonally, as someone who has to be at work at the reasonable hour of 8 am, I welcome the "extra" daylight in the morning.
Personally, as someone who drives for a living with no specific schedule and suffers mildly from SAD (that's Seasonal Affective Depression - though never formally diagnosed, I'm reasonably certain) I welcome extra daylight in the evening. I am definitely a supporter of year-round DST.
And as for those of you with 8-5 jobs, you're either going to go to work in darkness or come home in darkness, but you're not going to do both. Logically I would think you'd want a little daylight after work if at all possible, since that's when most people are going to do leisure things.
We do outdoor leisure activities during the warmer months, when the days are getting longer anyway. In the winter, it can get dark at 2:00 PM for all I care, because we're only going out if we need to, and who needs sunlight to run errands by.
I don't know anyone with a regular day gig that gets home with enough time to put a lot of daylight to use in the non-DST part of the calendar, and much/most of that stretch is not super conducive to short-term outdoor activity anyway. Those of you in warmer climes may disagree.
I just don't see the tremendous utility of late daylight during Standard Time that folks champion. I would say, if you're bundling up and getting outside during the cold winter months (which lots of us do like to do) already, fine, let's talk about how later daylight would help. But if the weekends are any basis to judge, most people aren't out there doing daylight-dependent things after November anyway. It keeps coming back to the desire to simply "see the sun."
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 13, 2015, 10:10:32 PM
It keeps coming back to the desire to simply "see the sun."
This is not simply some easily dismissed as irrelevant desire, though. Lack of seeing the sun is well known to negatively impact people's moods, although different people are affected to different degrees. Some can shrug and not think much of it. Others get depressed every winter to the point where they need medication to treat it. I am not at either extreme but it does noticeably affect me.
I also suffer from mild SAD. It's depressing when you see mostly artificial light (and working in an office, the only daylight you see in winter is the morning commute).
DST has no effect on my ability to wake up. I don't have a window in my bedroom (or my office for that matter).
Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2015, 12:24:31 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 13, 2015, 10:10:32 PM
It keeps coming back to the desire to simply "see the sun."
This is not simply some easily dismissed as irrelevant desire, though. Lack of seeing the sun is well known to negatively impact people's moods, although different people are affected to different degrees. Some can shrug and not think much of it. Others get depressed every winter to the point where they need medication to treat it. I am not at either extreme but it does noticeably affect me.
You're right, and I think the meager gains at either end of a workday–particularly stuck in a car–make little difference in this. Naturally-lit indoor workplaces should be a goal when possible. And as much as people shun the elements, bundling up and getting a walk or something in goes a long way. I recognize the reality of the workplace, but mopy workers aren't usually such great workers.
Key treatment for SAD is artificial dawn machines to act as alarm clocks. Late dawns will increase the issues, though obviously the best solution is to fly south for winter!
As with most things, politicians and special interests have bastardized the entire DST concept. It used to be 6 months of standard time, 6 months of daylight savings time. But, it's gradually moved to almost 8 months of DST and 4 months of ST. Absurd. I am fully in favor of shifting time zones in the USA to keep DST all year 'round.
The "kids at the bus stop in the dark" straw-man argument is BS, just as it was BS in 1974. In fact, it's even more BS now because lifestyles have changed and more kids are involved in after school events now and somehow manage to survive walking home in the dark at 4:30 or 5 in the winter! Plus, fewer parents let their kids stand at the bus stop unaccompanied anyhow. Frankly, it's a weak argument, I've heard it most of my life, it's always been total crap and let's move on.
Face it, there would be less energy usage overall if DST stayed in effect all year and we would save a lot of hassle (and money) by keeping our clocks on the same time all year round. That said, such a proposal would likely coincide with an overall shift in the TZ boundaries (eastward), so that we would not have states like Michigan and Indiana with extraordinarily late sunrises in December. But it could be done and would put the entire argument to rest.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 11, 2015, 03:42:52 PMFace it, there would be less energy usage overall if DST stayed in effect all year and we would save a lot of hassle (and money) by keeping our clocks on the same time all year round.
Indiana found that to be the case - Standard time year round used less energy in the summer than having DST during the summer. While there are no recent trials for winter DST, I can imagine it having the same effect - negative energy savings.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on April 11, 2015, 03:42:52 PM
As with most things, politicians and special interests have bastardized the entire DST concept. It used to be 6 months of standard time, 6 months of daylight savings time. But, it's gradually moved to almost 8 months of DST and 4 months of ST. Absurd. I am fully in favor of shifting time zones in the USA to keep DST all year 'round.
The "kids at the bus stop in the dark" straw-man argument is BS, just as it was BS in 1974. In fact, it's even more BS now because lifestyles have changed and more kids are involved in after school events now and somehow manage to survive walking home in the dark at 4:30 or 5 in the winter! Plus, fewer parents let their kids stand at the bus stop unaccompanied anyhow. Frankly, it's a weak argument, I've heard it most of my life, it's always been total crap and let's move on.
Face it, there would be less energy usage overall if DST stayed in effect all year and we would save a lot of hassle (and money) by keeping our clocks on the same time all year round. That said, such a proposal would likely coincide with an overall shift in the TZ boundaries (eastward), so that we would not have states like Michigan and Indiana with extraordinarily late sunrises in December. But it could be done and would put the entire argument to rest.
I pass by several bus stops on the way to work and see plenty of kids walking to and waiting at bus stops without parents. Just this past Friday did sunrise occur before I arrived at work, and it's another couple weeks before sunrise occurs before I leave for work.
My kid's kickball league plays until around 8:15. The league would be done if DST was done away with.
Well, that seals it.
I can see a time in the next 50 years when time zones become considered quaint and the whole world switches to Zulu time (GMT). Locals can adjust their schedules accordingly, i.e. NFL early-afternoon games kick off at 1800 GMT and bedtime is 0400.
Quote from: Road Hog on April 24, 2015, 05:30:20 PM
I can see a time in the next 50 years when time zones become considered quaint and the whole world switches to Zulu time (GMT). Locals can adjust their schedules accordingly, i.e. NFL early-afternoon games kick off at 1800 GMT and bedtime is 0400.
Rocket cars and jet packs will come sooner than you will eliminate the concepts of noon and midnight. True, as you point out, some businesses would prefer global time, but most business is local, and people will surely resist.
Those fields that need global time can already use Universal Time if they want to. Astronomers, computer networks, the military. That most other people choose to use local civil time might tell you something.
Zulu time is one example of a culture-neutral time--most of us don't want to live in a culture-neutral world.
Elimination of time zones would be a major step towards globalisation.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 26, 2015, 02:15:58 PM
Zulu time is one example of a culture-neutral time--most of us don't want to live in a culture-neutral world.
UTC is used by, among other places, the UK, so it is in no way, shape, or form culture-neutral. If we all wanted to switch to a culture-neutral time, we'd have to find a time zone used by nobody, and switch to that.
Quote from: vdeane on April 26, 2015, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 26, 2015, 02:15:58 PM
Zulu time is one example of a culture-neutral time--most of us don't want to live in a culture-neutral world.
UTC is used by, among other places, the UK, so it is in no way, shape, or form culture-neutral. If we all wanted to switch to a culture-neutral time, we'd have to find a time zone used by nobody, and switch to that.
UTC+24:00, maybe?
That's just UTC on a shifted day. There don't seem to be any full hours that aren't currently used (except perhaps UTC-13 or something?), but there are plenty of half hours available.
Quote from: vdeane on April 26, 2015, 09:35:40 PMUTC is used by, among other places, the UK
Nope. UTC =/= GMT (or even WET).
UTC follows GMT to within 0.9 seconds (by adding leap seconds), but they are not the same.