Why Are We Still Observing Daylight Saving Time? (thehill.com) 242
As millions set their clocks forward one hour, there's pockets of resistance, according to this local news report:
- "According to a March 2022 CBS News poll, 46% of Americans prefer permanent daylight saving time, while 33% prefer permanent standard time. The remaining 21% simply favor the status quo."
- "Exceptions to this adopted norm include residents of Hawaii and most of Arizona, where standard time is permanent throughout the year."
But The Hill notes that America appears to be stuck halfway toward repealing daylight saving time: Earlier this month, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced the Sunshine Protection Act of 2023, which would make daylight saving time permanent. So far, the bill has received bipartisan support in the Senate and has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. If passed, the March 12 changing of the clocks would be the final such event — we wouldn't "fall back" in November.
A similar bill introduced by Rubio last year passed with unanimous support in the Senate, but it wasn't as well-received in the House.
So before America can end daylight saving time, that bill would need approval from the U.S. House of Representatives — and then the president's signature.
Meanwhile at least U.S. at least 19 states have already enacted legislation or resolutions to make daylight saving time permanent, the article points out. "But these states can't make the change without congressional approval, or their neighboring states enacting similar legislation."
- "According to a March 2022 CBS News poll, 46% of Americans prefer permanent daylight saving time, while 33% prefer permanent standard time. The remaining 21% simply favor the status quo."
- "Exceptions to this adopted norm include residents of Hawaii and most of Arizona, where standard time is permanent throughout the year."
But The Hill notes that America appears to be stuck halfway toward repealing daylight saving time: Earlier this month, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced the Sunshine Protection Act of 2023, which would make daylight saving time permanent. So far, the bill has received bipartisan support in the Senate and has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. If passed, the March 12 changing of the clocks would be the final such event — we wouldn't "fall back" in November.
A similar bill introduced by Rubio last year passed with unanimous support in the Senate, but it wasn't as well-received in the House.
So before America can end daylight saving time, that bill would need approval from the U.S. House of Representatives — and then the president's signature.
Meanwhile at least U.S. at least 19 states have already enacted legislation or resolutions to make daylight saving time permanent, the article points out. "But these states can't make the change without congressional approval, or their neighboring states enacting similar legislation."
Craziness (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always amazed me that some people actually think the number of daylight hours in a day changes by changing a clock.
If people want to start work earlier, start work earlier, but don't screw with the clocks. if 9-5 becomes 8-4 so be it.
Re:Craziness (Score:4, Interesting)
It's always amazed me that some people actually think the number of daylight hours in a day changes by changing a clock.
For many people the number of USEFUL hours does change.
- "According to a March 2022 CBS News poll, 46% of Americans prefer permanent daylight saving time, while 33% prefer permanent standard time. The remaining 21% simply favor the status quo."
If only there were another possibility: Change it by half an hour, once, and be done with it.
FWIW: I'm in favor of the status quo. It means two more days per year are interesting ones.
(and where would we be without the twice-yearly moan-fests by people who are too self-centered to understand why it's done?)
Re:Craziness (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I hope you're being jokey here. It's not "interesting", it has tangible negative health and safety effects
If only they did it on a weekend where people can have a lie-in on Sunday.
Maybe they could warn people in advance, too, so that those with a weak heart could spread the shock to their system over three whole days. Getting up 20 minutes earlier/later isn't going to kill anybody.
Re:Craziness (Score:4, Funny)
If only they did it on a weekend where people can have a lie-in on Sunday.
The best suggestion I heard was in a cartoon, which pointed out that if the "move clocks forward" event would just be scheduled on a Friday afternoon, everybody who works 9-5 will cheer.
Maybe they could warn people in advance, too, so that those with a weak heart could spread the shock to their system over three whole days.
Presumably this post was intended as irony, although on the internet it's always hard to tell.
Re: (Score:2)
One day? My body needs a few weeks to adapt to th new time
Re:Craziness (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, yeah, because there is no such thing as people who work overnight, or on the weekends. So just because you can sleep all day on Sunday doesn't make it any better of a time/day to do it. Just get rid of it altogether. It has no benefits.
Re:Craziness (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're being jokey here. It's not "interesting",
Sure it is. Just watch how much fun people have coming into work late and saying, "Oh, silly me! What am I like?".
It never gets old no matter how long you live.
(Every single day should be just like all the others, right?)
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were another possibility: Change it by half an hour, once, and be done with it.
That wouldn't really address the issue. It would make the early morning sun in the summer slightly less annoying, but not enough, and it would make winter mornings slightly less dark, but not enough.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't really address the issue.
It addresses it better than the other two options.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always amazed me that some people actually think the number of daylight hours in a day changes by changing a clock.
For many people the number of USEFUL hours does change.
- "According to a March 2022 CBS News poll, 46% of Americans prefer permanent daylight saving time, while 33% prefer permanent standard time. The remaining 21% simply favor the status quo."
If only there were another possibility: Change it by half an hour, once, and be done with it.
FWIW: I'm in favor of the status quo. It means two more days per year are interesting ones.
(and where would we be without the twice-yearly moan-fests by people who are too self-centered to understand why it's done?)
Love the moan fest thing.
What I am surprised the slashdot crew does not seem to know about is Coordinated Universal Time, or UTC. Yeah, kinda backwards on the initialization, eh?
One single time over the entire world, and very accurate. No time zones, no daylight savings time, one time experience to rule them all.
But if a person lives nearer to the equator, Daylight Savings time is so damn stupid a person would have to be an idiot to even make an excuse for it.
And living at the highest latitudes,
A discrete approximation [Re:Craziness] (Score:2)
But for people who live in mid latitudes, DST serves a pretty good function. We have wide swings in daylight/darkness, and DST allows us to make better use of them.
Yep. DST is a discrete approximation to trying to keep sunrise time closer to constant for mid latitudes.
Optimum solution would be to redefine the day so sunrise occurs at a constant time, but that of course would mean a variable length of the day.
(and would screw up at high latitudes, although hardly anybody lives above the Arctic circle.)
Re: (Score:2)
Optimum solution would be to redefine the day so sunrise occurs at a constant time, but that of course would mean a variable length of the day.
Optimum solution is to have noon at a constant time. That's actually how it works before anyone screws with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Optimum solution would be to redefine the day so sunrise occurs at a constant time, but that of course would mean a variable length of the day.
Optimum solution is to have noon at a constant time.
Depends. If you want to start the day when the sun rises, and put the extra daylight in the evening (which is what daylight saving time attempts to do, in a discontinuous way), sunrise is the obvious choice.
I can't think of any reason at all that noon should be the constant point. It splits the extra daylight between morning and evening, but unless you want sunlight before you wake up, that's useless.
That's actually how it works before anyone screws with it.
"How it works" is how we choose to define it. Maybe you're referencing some historical "that's the way it wa
Re: (Score:3)
Optimum for what?
Local solar time was indeed the standard for people in the early 19th century who spent their time in their immediate locality interacting with people face to face. At the time it was completely satisfactory in every way, but as soon as people began to routinely travel over long distances -- with railroads -- it became completely unmanageable. Imagine today if towns still had their own local time. If you made a phone call from Syracuse NY to Albany at 4:55 pm, the recipient would have left
Re: (Score:2)
What I am surprised the slashdot crew does not seem to know about is Coordinated Universal Time, or UTC. Yeah, kinda backwards on the initialization, eh?
It's actually a beautiful piece of compromise: that derangement of initials was selected as the one that doesn't match the word order in English or French, so everyone is equally confused.
The trees were all made equal, by hatchet, axe, and saw.
Re: (Score:3)
"According to a March 2022 CBS News poll, 46% of Americans prefer permanent daylight saving time"
Duh, you can't have this. Try it, and come winter, everyone will go, "Oh no, the kiddies are going to school in the dark, we can't have that, lets change the school hours to be later in the day. Then, the businesses have trouble getting the parents in to work 'cuz the're wrangling the kids to either take them to school or get them on the bus, so the businesses all say, "Oh, no, we can't have all these people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You guys aren't getting the point... the status quo is fantastic for those of us who need daylight EITHER in the morning or evening, so before or after work.
On Friday, sunrise was around 6:15am here. That was plenty of time for me to get a good run in before work.
On Monday, I won't have enough time in the morning, but sunset will be at 7:05pm, so I smoothly transition to evening outdoor workouts instead, and get a bike ride in when I get home at 6. If you left DST in place year around, I wouldn't have enoug
Re: (Score:2)
Latitude matters [Re:Craziness] (Score:3)
My entire country doesn't do it I can't figure out how daylight can be more or less useful,
Depends on latitude. If "your entire country" is at low latitudes, Daylight Savings Time is not useful.
Re:Craziness (Score:5, Insightful)
If people want to start work earlier, start work earlier, but don't screw with the clocks. if 9-5 becomes 8-4 so be it.
Retail stores, restaurants, and theme parks already operate on variable schedules. It's really only businesses operating on banking hours and schools that treat their fixed hours of operation with religious reverence.
Re: (Score:2)
So the places where productivity drops twice a year is academia and finances.
Great, who needs that?
Re: (Score:2)
So the places where productivity drops twice a year is academia and finances.
Great, who needs that?
We need to go to UTC, where there is only one time over the entire world. I mean, how stupid and unnecessary are time zones anyhow? 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Personally, I live on UTC. Ok, it means I go to work at "odd" times, but how is this relevant? Where's the difference between working 9 to 5 and working 6pm to 2am when it's the same time, just labeled differently.
People are way too hung up on labels.
Local solar time (Score:2)
...how stupid and unnecessary are time zones anyhow? 8^)
Indeed! Now that GPS equipped timepieces are ubiquitous, we can all finally get back to using local solar time. :)
Easier (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Y'know, and have them on things like shop windows, signs and advertisements and other stuff that's hard to change our not worth it 2x yearly.
But please, don't let me interrupt your rant. Continue.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really only businesses operating on banking hours and schools that treat their fixed hours of operation with religious reverence.
Banking is done online these days.
I bet most kids would love a day every year where they can come to school half an hour later.
Re: Craziness (Score:2)
This. The clocks should match the actual time as closely as is reasonable (not down to the nearest minute based on longitude obv) otherwise wtf is the point of having something that tells the time? Also if people want more useful time in the mornings during the summer then gtfu earlier! Dont put the clocks to be put forward to fool thickos into thinking its an hour later.
Re: (Score:2)
The clocks should match the actual time as closely as is reasonable ...
Define "actual time" -- scientifically. I'll wait...
Hint: Just like "all words are made up", all time(keeping) systems are made up -- and arbitrary.
Re: Craziness (Score:2)
Midnight midday
The clues in the names.
Re: (Score:2)
So by advocating staying strictly to midnight beuig midnight and midday being midday, what are you suggesting?
Variable length seconds to track this and a different time of day depending where you are on the planet (say a time zone for every square meter to make it simpler eh?) in relation to the sun?
I mean if you like but I can't see it being popular.
Re: Craziness (Score:2)
Oh so something that is variable depending on the mass of nearby objects? That sounds horrible.
Re: (Score:3)
No one really wants to start work earlier. Many, though, or so it seems, would like to end work earlier, even if that means having to start earlier, too.
And many people have no say about the timing at their workplace.
I can relate to that, but I also see that those who already find they start work too early need to be considered, too. For them, having to start even earlier in winter will not only be an inconvenience; in the long run, it will be detrimental to the health of many.
Personally, I'm in the dilemma
Re: (Score:2)
If people want to start work earlier, start work earlier,
That doesn't work if you have to drop off your kids at school, interact with suppliers and customers, and coordinate with external organizations such as banks.
The advantage of DST is that everyone switches on the same day, and no businesses need to change their posted hours.
A big problem with ending DST is that there is no consensus on how to do so. Some people want to keep DST as it is. Some want to end it and go back to standard time. Others want to go to permanent DST year-round. None of these groups is
Re:Craziness (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always amazed me that some people actually think the number of daylight hours in a day changes by changing a clock.
If people want to start work earlier, start work earlier, but don't screw with the clocks. if 9-5 becomes 8-4 so be it.
You have not thought this through. Specifically, you're violating the Chesterton's Fence principle [lesswrong.com].
Consider what would happen if every business, school, etc. decided for themselves if, when, and how to shift their hours. You wouldn't know without looking every time what time stores opened and closed, and businesses would have the same problem talking to suppliers and non-retail customers (granted that all of this would be less problematic in the Internet age; previously it would have been impossible). Business hours would fall in and out of sync with school hours, causing headaches for parents. It would be a mess. So much of a mess that no one would actually do it, we'd just stick with standard time and be annoyed at the sun waking us up annoyingly early in the summer, and at going to school and work in pitch black in the winter.
Of course, we could tame the mess. We could pass legislation specifying that all businesses and schools must shift their hours by the same amount, at the same moment, all in lockstep. Which, of course, is exactly what we do, only we do it the smart way, the one that doesn't require millions of businesses to change their signs twice per year.
Re: Craziness (Score:3, Insightful)
ProTip: stores already have their own opening and closing times
Re: (Score:3)
You wouldn't know without looking every time what time stores opened and closed
We don't anyways. It is not like businesses all have the same hours. Some open at 7. Some open at 9. Some close at 5. Some are open evenings. Some have different hours or are closed on weekends. Some vary their hours by the day of the week, or seasonally. Some have arbitrary days they are closed. Some shut down for the lunch hour, which also varies.
Once you visit a few businesses you expect to be open and find they are not, checking first becomes second nature.
Re:Craziness (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider this: You have all that information available to you at your fingertips in real-time. You have the internet in your hand. You have a phone in your pocket. You can find out everything you need to know about any location you intend to visit.
We don't do it the smart way. Because there is, was, and will continue to be no smart reason to change the clocks in the first place. Every single thing you said to consider is not only stupid, but patently wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
You wouldn't know without looking every time what time stores opened and closed
We have DST now and I don't know without looking what time stores open and close. What time do you think stores open and close?
Fortunately smart phones now exist and if it's, for example, 8 or 9 pm and I'm wondering if the store is still open I can check in less than a minute.
If you're thinking of the old song "working 9-5", that's just a song. Of the top of my head I can't think of any business that opens at 9 or closes at 5.
As for "banker's hours", around here I can find banks that are open 9-4, 9-5, 9-6
Re: (Score:3)
Businesses already already do exactly that. They decide when they are open or not.
They already talk to suppliers and non-retail customers, daily, about receiving and deliveries.
I have to look up operating hours of places on a daily basis.
We don't do what you are suggesting we do already.
Businesses already change their signs twice a year or more, with seasonal hours that have nothing to do with DST.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always amazed me that some people actually think the number of daylight hours in a day changes by changing a clock.
I don't think I've ever met a single person who thinks that.
(The main problem with eliminating the time change is that a majority of people agree it should be done, but the people advocating not changing the clocks by using DST all year can't agree with the people advocating not changing the clocks by keeping standard time all year.)
If people want to start work earlier, start work earlier, but don't screw with the clocks. if 9-5 becomes 8-4 so be it.
That makes sense to me; change work hours twice a year, and leave the clocks along.
Re:People Are Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
> Am I right?
(checks publicly-funded peer-reviewed research on the topic of going back to DST in the spring...) nope, you're not.
The answer is simple. (Score:2)
Re:The answer is simple. (Score:4, Funny)
If you think everyone's out to get you, you're not necessarily paranoid.
Maybe they actually do have a reason for it...
You can't Cancel Culture Time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Protesting is one thing, but if you actually want to make things better, you have to do it. I did. I just come to work an hour late during Summer and that's that. Why the clocks would have to change because of the seasons is beyond me, because... ya know, for most of human's history, they didn't. That fad came into existence in the 70s when we thought this would allow us to save electricity by needing less power for our light bulbs.
The light bulbs are now LEDs that draw barely any power so... care to explai
Re: (Score:2)
The Tide Pod votes.
I must use that phrase more often.
The only surprise is that there's so many of them posting on a "nerd" site like Slashdot.
Because Human Biologi (Score:3)
There are two options. Adapt technology and societal systems to fit human biology, or adapt human biology to avoid having to adapt technology or societal systems. Or a third option, do some serious geoengineering and fix earth's "broken" tilted axis.
Human biology is adapted to follow the day/night cycle. The inconvenience of adjusting the clock twice per year is small compared to the pain of living for months every year with a misaligned biological/physical clock.
If we remove daylight savings, I guess human biology will adapt in some thousand years, if we are still around by then. Which at the rate humanity is making stupid decisions at the moment, I would not bet significant money that is going to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Daylight saving time was never about humans or human biology. The idea always was to save energy, i.e. money, but it turned out that didn't happen, either, but they still clung to it.
Daylight saving time does not help human biology. Rather, by tendency, it works against it. Also, in which way it affects human biology depends on what chronotype someone is. Which is why roughly half of the populations would rather prefer permanent DST, while the other half would rather prefer standard time. The problem for bo
Re: (Score:3)
You ARE aware that the fad of changing the clocks twice a year was introduced in the 70s as a response to the oil crisis and the ensuing power woes, because we thought that it would make people use less electricity for light? In the US, it was actually introduced earlier, about 100 years ago in WW1, and IIRC in WW2 they had "war time", i.e. round the year DST, or something like that. Either way, for most of human history, we had one time throughout the year, without the collective ritual of fiddling with th
Re: (Score:3)
You ARE aware that the fad of changing the clocks twice a year was introduced in the 70s as a response to the oil crisis and the ensuing power woes, because we thought that it would make people use less electricity for light? In the US, it was actually introduced earlier, about 100 years ago in WW1, and IIRC in WW2 they had "war time", i.e. round the year DST, or something like that. Either way, for most of human history, we had one time throughout the year, without the collective ritual of fiddling with the clocks twice a year.
So if anything, we might adapt to clock fiddling in a thousand years or so, not the other way around.
For vast majority of recorded history society didn't even have clocks. Their collective view of time took the form of sun and star positions. They read sundials calibrated to local noon.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. You can adapt quickly enough to a minor change like that, but you can't adapt overnight to a one hour shift so the change actually kills people. God forbid you be "inconvenienced", people must die for your comfort.
If only there was a way to know in advance so at-risk people could do it in 10-minute steps...
Oh, wait! The deaths aren't from metabolic function, they're mostly caused by car crashes because certain people don't know how to drive in the dark. How about we fix the problem by making them spend more time driving in the dark all year round?
Ah, it's that time of year again... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I would have been oblivious to it's passing...had it not been for this lazy Slashdot article.
Everything I use for a clock auto adjusts...
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we still change the clock? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because we don't want to get up to dark winter mornings we keep that time as standard time.
Daylight saving and standard time are a very simple way to synchronise the whole of society while that one hour shift is in other respects hardly a noticeable effort.
I see no reason what so ever to ditch this bi-annual change.
It makes me wonder about the sanity of those that claim this once in six months change by one hour is upsetting their natural rhythm, few people would throughout the week wake up and go to bed at exactly the same time anyway.
Re:Why do we still change the clock? (Score:5, Informative)
It makes me wonder about the sanity of those that claim this once in six months change by one hour is upsetting their natural rhythm
They claim that because it does. It's not just in their heads, lots of research has backed this up. Spending most of my life in Arizona, and I'll bet Hawaiians feel the same way, that there's nothing to be gained by this clock changing silliness. If it really bothers you that much, then just get up an hour later in the winter. In fact a lot of research out there shows that schools do in fact start too early, to the detriment of academic performance, and it all comes down to biology:
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re:Why do we still change the clock? (Score:4, Interesting)
For many years I've irregularly worked in continental Europe and also in the UK where they, for good reasons, have a clock that's set one hour later. I've never seen that hour difference as an issue, some people with a good expense account even fly back and forth every weekend.
Now we have to realise most of the continental USA is further south than continental Europe so the effect of daylight saving is in the southern parts of the USA less pronounced than in northern latitudes like Canada, Scotland or the Scandinavian countries and questions can be asked about that effectivity.
Re:Why do we still change the clock? (Score:5, Informative)
Spending most of my life in Arizona, and I'll bet Hawaiians feel the same way, that there's nothing to be gained by this clock changing silliness.
That's probably true because both of those locations are at very low latitudes where there is no point in changing the clock because the hours of daylight don't change much. However, up here in Canada they do and it is much nicer to have longer evenings with light in the summer until ~10pm and have sunrise an hour later in the morning (though still at ~4am). Having sunrise at 3am is also likely to cause sleep issues in some people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
In fact a lot of research out there shows that schools do in fact start too early, to the detriment of academic performance, and it all comes down to biology
It also comes down to the fact that a big part of school's purpose is babysitting kids while their parents work. Schools start early because it is more convenient for parents to get their kids to school and then go to work themselves. We saw what a crisis remote learning was for parents during the pandemic with nobody to babysit the kids during the day. Having school start later would be great for kids, but bad for parents, and parents are the ones who get to vote.
Re: Why do we still change the clock? (Score:2)
This is mostly a function of the latitude you live at. Here in London, this week Iâ(TM)ve only just started waking at 6 (which is still before sunrise) to light in the sky. Thatâ(TM)s several months of taking my son to school in the dark or first light. Itâ(TM)s still dark when I come home from work. Iâ(TM)m very much looking forward to summer time starting in a few weeks, although Iâ(TM)d
Re: (Score:2)
Double Summer time would make sunrise in Winter (i.e. "single" Summer time) at around 8am for London.
Re: Why do we still change the clock? (Score:2)
Sunrise is already after 8am in December in London, so I wonâ(TM)t even notice the difference. Sunset at 15:45 becomes a reasonable time and I wouldnâ(TM)t feel like the evening closing in early afternoon.
Re: (Score:2)
Sunrise would be an hour later, no matter what it's now, don't you get it? You don't magically create an hour of sunlight by DST.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lemme guess (Score:3)
The closer to the equator, the higher the approval ratings for permanent DST?
Re: (Score:2)
not really. they prefer that consistency of their days.
It is more how far east into your timezone, the more likely you are to prefer DST. Maine: they've voted DST-365 (can't implement without Congress to pass a law).
But Michigan? They're very much against it because the sun doesn't even rise until almost 9am (as they discovered when DST-365 was implemented back in 1974).
Of the 19 states that have passed DST-365 (but can't implement it because of the law as written), only 3 I would consider to be on the west
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, another way around, closer to the equator, the whole clock-changing becomes kinda meaningless because the difference in daylight between Summer and Winter is trivial. Just set the clock to whatever and be done with it.
Adjusting time goes against science... (Score:2)
I never understood the concept of "daylight savings time", I mean - I've seen it described and understand the points, but I still don't see why we should mess with time, the clock moves as it does, it does NOT make a time-warp back and forth just because we get the bright idea to adjust it mechanically.
We tried passing getting rid of daylight savings here in Europe too, most of the countries voted yes - but after that we never heard about it again, and literally nothing happened.
It's one of those unsolved mysteries (Score:5, Informative)
Like why Slashdot runs these damn stories posed as a question twice a year despite the fact we all know exactly what all the responses will be.
Sleep Scientists Agree - Standard Time is Better (Score:5, Interesting)
Standard time aligns with humans circadian rhythm much better. Permanent daylight savings time will be very bad for our health. I'll take their word over people yammering about their social clock being more important than findings from people who actually study health related to our proper sleep cycles.
Why Permanent Standard Time Is Best for our Bodies [americanscientist.org]
Sleep researchers call for an end to daylight time, citing increased heart attack, traffic risks “I haven’t seen any health-related research that favours daylight savings time." [ottawacitizen.com]
Circadian rhythm expert argues against permanent daylight saving time [ucalgary.ca]
UTC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EU abolished it, member states still keep it up (Score:2)
Four years ago, after surveys in member states showed people's discontent with switching clocks twice a year, the European Parliament voted to stop it; it was decided to be in the member states' hands which time zone to make permanent.
Since then, nothing happened (except UK leaving the EU), because member states failed to coordinate about which times to adopt. For fear of deciding against half the population no matter whether DST or standard time will be chosen, and for fear of having to switch clocks again
Re: (Score:2)
Only the crazy people that feel strongly about this mobilized themselves through facebook and whatnot and voted. By "crazy" I mean that they really feel this is something of the utmost importance for some reason that I can't comprehend.
For me, I wish there was an option for "we'll just stick with option X forever and forbid anyone from wasting time discussing it again", where X is arbitrary.
Permanent DST Was Tried Already (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It was passed in 1974 and after one winter it was repealed because people hated it.
Yep. It's so annoying the way this debate crops up year after year after year, as though the alternatives haven't already been tested and discarded for good reasons. Yes, changing the clocks twice a year sucks. But experience shows that it sucks less than the alternatives.
Most annoying of all is the standard /. response "Leave the clocks alone, just shift business hours", which is utterly vapid. Unless everyone shifted business/school hours on the same weekend it would be horribly confusing. Of course, we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main why is that on the western side of each timezone, during that first winter, sunrise wasn't happening until well after 8 (in Michigan's case, almost 9am).
If you look at the "19 states" link above, you'll find that except for Utah and Idaho, the states that want to go DST-365 are all on the eastern side of their timezones (TN is an interesting split - likely the DST-365 push is coming from the western part of the state which is already in Central timezone). So if the sun is already rising pretty earl
Noon (Score:2)
Noon is when the Sun is at apogee in the local sky. Round its average to your map-based timezone, do some arithmetic, and there you go - the real timezone.
We literally check our phones all the time for store hours and most stores have summer and winter hours anyway, so there's no reason that a school can't either.
But, heck, I heard the other day that our local courthouse doesn't even have a PBX or voicemail - just a recording saying the line is busy - all day long.
It's 1950 in government offices and they e
My state used to be standard time and I remember (Score:2, Insightful)
making fun of how fucking stupid it was to change your clocks. Now I've had to do it for, I don't know, a couple decades now. I fucking hate it.
I prefer standard time but I'd take permanent DST just to avoid this fucking nonsense. I actually thought that shit passed and we weren't going to have to do it this year.
Then I saw congress had been congress and fucked it up when the overwhelming majority is sick of this shit one way or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Still hoping ... (Score:2)
... maybe in my lifetime it will actually happen. "The Year Without Jet Lag."
Possibly my final year, by the time it finally happens, but I'll still take it!
and here we are again (Score:2)
with the twice annual discussion on /. of DST as if we've never had it before and maybe THIS time we'll actually reach some kind of consensus.
To say it is like clockwork?
Iâ(TM)m glad things never change around here (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)ve been reading this damn site since near the beginning pre Y2K. I wonder how many of these threads about DST I have read. But l love them all! Keep it coming.
Fix it for ya (Score:2, Insightful)
>"Why Are We Still Observing Daylight Saving Time?"
The better questions is why are we still observing Standard Time? Now that we are on DST, we should just stay there forever. More awake daylight (on the standard schedule) for the majority of people for the year with no more "adjusting".
But given only the choice of permanent Standard Time vs. this insane changing of time twice a year, I will take the former.
So whatever we do, STOP CHANGING TIME all the time.
Retail establishments (Score:3)
the hardest thing... (Score:5, Funny)
The hardest thing each year is to get my one last VCR to switch from flashing 12:00's to flashing 1:00's.
Won't someone please think of the clock setters? (Score:2)
I don't know why you do it (Score:2)
I do it because I'd miss my train otherwise.
So in summary (Score:2)
Where you stand on DST vs ST is based upon where in the time zone you live and which would be more beneficial to you.
Honor dies where interest lies, same as it ever was.
You might want to keep changing the clock ... (Score:2)
The figures in history (Score:3)
waste more electricity, and harm your health. (Score:3)
When the Indiana regions switched over to DST, there was a statistically significant increase in electricity use.
It does make sense if you think about waking up in the morning. If it is dark you turn on the light, but you don't turn off the light as soon as it is light enough not to need it.
Senator Rubio pointed out that more money is spent when DST is in effect. This is in contrast to the studies that show that DST is harmful to people's health. So, the American way is to put money before people.
Yay!