rcd@opus.UUCP (05/05/84)
<> (Base article appeared in net.physics,math) >Just before the change to summer time I had the electric timer >that runs my outdoor light adjusted to come on exactly (to within five >minutes) when I wanted it to -- just at dusk. Now with this time >change I can't figure out whether to set the timer ahead an hour or >back an hour .. neither seems to work too well. Any astronomers >out there? >Puzzled and perplexed... Fun. First, set the timer ahead an hour. Now, since you've screwed it up, reset the "on" time to an hour later. Or, just leave it alone. Yes, daylight savings time is a wonderful idea. We can reset our clocks and then wait for everyone to change schedules throughout the summer to adapt to the lengthening day. What was the result? We spent a lot of time changing clocks. That's it - no free hour. I'm not a nut who thinks that Standard Time was decreed by God, but I haven't been able to figure out what we gain by messing with the clocks, especially since most people's schedules change with the seasons anyway. If you want to get home for more daylight, leave work earlier. (Or maybe I'm just annoyed at having to write code to take account of the fact that when people record clock times, there's one invalid hour in the year and one ambiguous hour in the year:-) -- ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew. Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (05/07/84)
<spring up, fall down> | I'm not a nut who thinks that Standard Time was decreed by God, but I | haven't been able to figure out what we gain by messing with the | clocks, especially since most people's schedules change with the | seasons anyway. If you want to get home for more daylight, leave work | earlier. | | ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew. Dick Dunn You must have had too many homebrews already, if you think that the whole world is on flex-time. I hate to disillusion you, but the majority of the American workforce is stuck with fixed hours, and by setting the hour earlier, they get to enjoy an hour more of sunlight than they would otherwise, having to get up and go to work exactly at a given time. What this extra hour of sunlight in the evening does for their sleep schedules is not too nice, however . . . Hutch.
maggie2@iwpba.UUCP (maggie2) (05/08/84)
"If you want to get home for more daylight, leave work earlier" That's fine for those in a relaxed work environment, but there are a *lot* of people out there who can't just tell their boss that they are changing their working hours for the summer!!
wmartin@brl-vgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (05/09/84)
The only sensible situation is to have what we call "Daylight Savings"
Time as our "Standard" Time. That is, one Spring, move forward one
hour and then NEVER move back again. This was proposed as an "energy
conservation" measure back during the oil embargo, but the other advantages
of it far outweigh any conservation gains.
Why should we be denied the daylight at the end of the workday during
Winter, anyway? We end up going to work in darkness, and then coming
home in twilight. (I work in a place with flextime, but the hours are
usually 0730-1615, which was the pre-flex standard.) What difference
does it make that it is dark outside until 1 or two hours after you have
started working? It is much more worthwhile to have some time after
work when you can still see outside to do a little yard work or other
tasks where daylight is necessary.
The standard argument I heard repeatedly during the proposed "year-round
daylight-saving time" was about school children going to school in
the dark. This is asinine: a) most are bussed anyway; b) the world should
be arranged for the benefit of real working people, not school kids;
c) schools can change their hours at the drop of an administrator --
they have around here to conform with the bussing nonsense anyway! --
so they could set up any schedule they want.
The second standard argument is that "the farmers won't stand for it."
Again, worthless, because: a) there are a lot fewer farmers now than
there used to be; b) most of those left run agri-businesses, not farms;
c) the hours of stores are not as restricted as they once were. [I think
this was the historical origin of farmers' opposition to Daylight Saving --
some conflict that precluded them from doing their farm work in daylight
and also getting to stores in town on the same day.]
Whether you like or dislike this concept has something to do with
where you live within the time zone. I don't have the relationships
really clear in my mind, but people near a zone boundary have
a great deal more effect from an hour change than those in the
middle of the zone. This is not only the hassles involved in
commerce or communications across the line, but the position of
the sun in the sky in relation to the clock time. Anybody want
to post a laymen's explanation of the details of this?
Who is better off, those in the zone center, the west part, or the
east part of a time zone? ("Better" meaning having more daylight
later in relation to clock time would mean that the Western inhabitants
are benefitted, but which is "better" if that is defined as clock time
agreeing with sun time?)
Willbarryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Barry Gold) (05/10/84)
As someone who wakes up when the light level in the bedroom reaches a
certain level of itennsity, I'd like to testify to my appreciation of
Daylight Savings Time. It lets me stay up to 10ish watching TV and keeps
dawn from coming until I've had at least 7 hours sleep.
--Lee Gold
--
Barry Gold/Lee Gold
usenet: {decvax!allegra|ihnp4}!sdcrdcf!ucla-s!lcc!barry
Arpanet: barry@BNLken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (05/11/84)
--
I remember hitching a ride with a real old guy once, just after the
switch to DST some long ago April. He remembered when DST was
instituted:
"We used to say, 'There's Mr. Roosevelt's time, and there's God's time.'"
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 11 May 84 [22 Floreal An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***billp@azure.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (05/11/84)
--------- > The only sensible situation is to have what we call "Daylight Savings" > Time as our "Standard" Time. That is, one Spring, move forward one > hour and then NEVER move back again. What an asinine idea! The reason why most work and most schools start at 8AM is that this is what people like. You can change it temporarily, and people will put up with it, but if you make the time shift permanent, the starting time for work and schools will gradually drift towards 9AM. If most people would like the extra hour in the evening, the general starting time would now be 7AM (Standard Time). Bill Pfeifer {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs} !tektronix!billp
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (05/11/84)
[Living sacrifice to assuage the gods of first lines . . .] ...!nrl-vgr!wmartin argues: > The standard argument I heard repeatedly during the proposed "year-round > daylight-saving time" was about school children going to school in > the dark. This is asinine: a) most are bussed anyway; b) the world should > be arranged for the benefit of real working people, not school kids; > c) schools can change their hours at the drop of an administrator -- > they have around here to conform with the bussing nonsense anyway! -- > so they could set up any schedule they want. Although I have my own rather violent feelings about daylight savings time, the argument presented above seems to me to be naive in all three of its subtopics. Bused school children would typically stand along a roadside somewhere waiting for the bus. They are obviously more at risk in the dark than in daylight, since the motorists on their way to work would have more trouble seeing them. As for the benefits of "real working people" vs school children, I wonder if, perhaps, some of the parents/guardians of school children might turn out to be "real working people" whose benefits coincide with those of their school children? As to the ability of schools to set up any schedule they want, I wonder how well it would work out if the working parents were due at work at 8, but the schools did not open until 9:30?! The school schedules are very definitely tied to the prevailing work schedules!! FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems USENET: {ucbvax, ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd70!cae780!gordon {qubix, hplabs}!cae780!gordon USNAIL: 1333 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 AT&T: (408)745-1440 From the world of the middle of four-part harmony.
kds@intelca.UUCP (05/19/84)
>> The only sensible situation is to have what we call "Daylight Savings" >> Time as our "Standard" Time. That is, one Spring, move forward one >> hour and then NEVER move back again. >What an asinine idea! The reason why most work and most schools start at 8AM >is that this is what people like. You can change it temporarily, and people... > Bill Pfeifer >{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs} !tektronix!billp What an asinine response! Seriously, I hope this isn't redundant, but I believe the original idea was tried back a few years, as an energy saving idea. It didn't last long because in some (most?) areas it was still dark in the morning when the kiddies had to walk to school (which didn't fly too well). There are still some states (Indiana and Arizona) that live way to the west of their solar time zones... the solar dividing line between Eastern and Central time should really be somewhere between Columbus and Dayton, for example, but most of Indiana is on Eastern time. As a result, Indiana NEVER goes on daylight savings time because they in effect already are on daylight savings time! Anyway, you get away with daylight savings time in the summer because it is light when most people get up (being that people don't generally get up earlier in the summer) but you wouldn't get away with it in the winter for the opposite reason. -- Ken Shoemaker, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. {pur-ee,hplabs,ucbvax!amd70,ogcvax!omsvax}!intelca!kds