On 2008-03-21, Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Aaron Denney wrote:
>> On 2008-03-21, Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Joy Beeson wrote:
>>>> The strange thing is, nobody has *ever*, as far as I know, offered a
>>>> defense of Devil Satan Time, yet it has been adopted all over the
>>>> world.
>>>>
>>>> Ask a DST proponent why he likes it and he'll give an enthusiastic
>>>> rendition of "early to bed and early to rise/makes a man healthy,
>>>> wealthy, and wise" with many, many corroborating details -- but he'll
>>>> studiously avoid explaining why longer and longer periods of DST are
>>>> progressive and with it, but year-round DST just won't do.
>>>>
>>>> A few play the "Gee, ma, all the other kids are doon' it" card, which
>>>> hits the table with a snigger-worthy lack of snap in Indiana, where
>>>> the only way to come reasonably close to doing what all the other
kids
>>>> are doing is to match Illinois half the year and Ohio half the year
--
>>>> which Indiana did for thirty years. And they never explain why all
>>>> the other kids are doing it.
>>>>
>>>> But I take back all the nasty things I've said about Benjamin
>>>> Franklin. While poking around the Web one day, I came across his
>>>> original proposal -- and it was clearly and obviously meant as a
>>>> *joke* -- something too absurd to ever implement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Try living up here in the almost Arctic circle - where dawn would
>>> arrive at about 2am at midsummer without "summer time" - and somewhere
>>> around 10m at midwinter if we stuck to "summer time" all year round.
>>
>> And is calling the period of darkness that was from 10 pm to 2 am
>> 11 pm to 3 am actually an improvement?
>
> Uh, that would be midnight to 3am - and yes.
Ah, well part of the problem must be that you're living offset from the
center of the timezone. At the center, if the sun rises near 4 am, it
must set near 8 pm.
> Unless you want to change the opening hours of shops and offices to
> take advantage of the daylight instead.
No, I don't want that. I want the individual shops and offices to feel
free to do that, or not as their choice.
>> Further, is it enough of an improvement that it compensates for the
>> groginess and significantly higher accident rates in the week falling?
>
> A week? Two days at most - that's why the changes happen at the
> weekend. Leastways that's the experiences here in the UK.
It's measurably higher accidents for a week. Some people get over it in
one day, others, with stronger circadian rhythms can take a couple of
weeks.
>> If you want to change when you get up and when you go to sleep, do so
by
>> all means. But you don't have to relabel the hours to do so, nor do
you
>> need to so by one-hour jumps, instead of adjusting slowly and
>> organically across the year.
>
> Much more efficient to change the clock than change all the work and
> shop opening hours.
Maybe, assuming that they'll all change the same way at the same times.
Ah, "efficiency". When you say that I hear "isn't it nice that everyone
is forced to do it in a way that is convenient to me?". DST seems to
make it much harder for anyone who wants to opt out of disrupting their
schedule, or those who think DST is so great that they want adjust by
twice as much, etc.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
|
