Slashdot Mirror


Extra Daylight Savings May Confuse the Gadgets

CrimeDoggy writes "In the energy bill to be signed by the President today (August 8), changes are to be made that extend daylight savings time. The bill would start daylight time three weeks earlier and end it a week later as an energy-saving measure. Many devices such as VCRs, cell phones, and watches would still operate on the previous schedule, potentially causing problems."

933 comments

  1. Time for a change... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Super. It's about time we monkey with the way we reckon time again...after all, we had almost gotten used to the current insane standard.

    I would propose a rather radically different option...eliminate time zones in the U.S. altogether. That's right, no time zones at all...everyone can just use GMT. I'm not advocating that everyone go to work at 09:00 GMT...business can determine what hours they want their employees to work, based on the amount of daylight available at that particular time of year, but the time standard would be the same everywhere. That way, there would be none of this bullshit confusion about 'what time is that here', or 'what is the time there'. It's GMT. The same damned time everywhere.

    We're already a global community...it only makes sense to adopt a global time. Of course, asking the country that still uses Imperial measurement units to spearhead this change might be asking a bit much...

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This would help so much. Just have internal time be in seconds, globally. Then just define days as XXXXXX-XXXXXX.

    2. Re:Time for a change... by dotdan · · Score: 0

      I agree, so what if I take a vacation to California and it's light out at 9PM there? The jet lag is usually bad enough where it doesn't matter.

    3. Re:Time for a change... by Peyna · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Swatch started such an initiative a couple years ago.

      Internet Time

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Time for a change... by Doom+bucket · · Score: 2

      Ok, so our culture is to ingrained in the American system of meausrement to change. I can accept that. We can't change the side of the road we drive on because the infastructure is already in place. And we'd again, have to teach millions how to relearn how to drive. But explain to me the significance of daylight savings time. I mean really.

    5. Re:Time for a change... by wazootyman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But what happens when I'm in Michigan and need to call a client in California? It's still relevant that 9 am here is 6 am there. If you eliminate time zones, you'll still have to adjust your schedule based on the fact that their day is about 3 hours behind yours.

      We already use a global time in a sense; time zones make GMT into a format that's easier to understand. Knowing that it's 05:00 GMT doesn't necessarily tell you whether you're going to be calling a person in the middle of the night or not.

    6. Re:Time for a change... by SlayerofGods · · Score: 4, Funny

      And while on the topic... who thought up this crazy 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day.
      We need metric time damn it!

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    7. Re:Time for a change... by Nos. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Move somewhere that doesn't use DST. I live in Saskatchewan (Canada). The time here is GMT -06:00, all year round.

    8. Re:Time for a change... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      The last thing we need to do is switch to a standard that includes terms prefixed with a period.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    9. Re:Time for a change... by Otter · · Score: 2, Funny

      I took a marketing class last fall where the case study book had (along with several other can't-miss late '90s schemes, including Alloy.com and Onsale.com) a case on Swatch Internet Time. It's aged about as well as the rest of the Swatch brand has...

    10. Re:Time for a change... by jZnat · · Score: 0, Troll

      Here we go again...

      *insert the typical "Time of day is relative to the sun's relative position to your area" and "noon is supposed to be when the sun is overhead" and "work schedules would be confusing" and "knowing when things like breakfast, lunch, dinner, etc. are would be confusing" and "business hours would be erratic" et al.*

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    11. Re:Time for a change... by Peyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      .business can determine what hours they want their employees to work, based on the amount of daylight available at that particular time of year, but the time standard would be the same everywhere. That way, there would be none of this bullshit confusion about 'what time is that here', or 'what is the time there'. It's GMT. The same damned time everywhere.

      Of course, this also creates a similar problem, it just shifts it to a different area.

      Instead of "what is it there"? The question becomes "What time do you start work over there?" "What time do you wake up over there?"

      So you still have to remember the same information, except there's less standardization aside from being able to say "Meet me at 10:00" and everyone can look at their watch and understand it to mean the same thing no matter where they are.

      So we'll all have the same time on our watches, but we'll be doing whatever we want whenever we want and coordination would become even more confusing.

      --
      What?
    12. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That doesn't change a thing. Today primetime television starts at the same time everywhere, not because it's the same number on the clock but it's the same time of day. If everyone observed GMT, then primetime would start at different hours on the east coast, central and west coast. Everything would be at different times, of course. Someone in NY wouldn't know if it is ok to call someone in LA at 0:00 any more than he knows know if it's ok to call at 8pm. Around the world different things happen at the same time. You'd also still have a rather arbitrary date border where time would change by 24 hours just because you crossed an invisible line in the ocean.

      The one thing which I am strongly in favor of is to put an end to daylight savings time. That is an entirely unnecessary and provably not energy conserving complexity which sounded like a nice idea but isn't.

    13. Re:Time for a change... by JReam · · Score: 1

      PLEASE mod Parent up "+5: Obliterate the 'sensibilities' of our current administration!"

    14. Re:Time for a change... by The+Warlock · · Score: 1

      The Babelonians. I am not making this up.

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    15. Re:Time for a change... by Peyna · · Score: 1

      The one thing which I am strongly in favor of is to put an end to daylight savings time. That is an entirely unnecessary and provably not energy conserving complexity which sounded like a nice idea but isn't.

      Or, instead of getting rid of it, just make it permanent time zone switch. I kind of like that it is light out until 9:30pm in the summer, and morning daylight is wasted on most people anyway.

      --
      What?
    16. Re:Time for a change... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you adopted this system you would be two steps behind China. They've had this sytem for a while now...

    17. Re:Time for a change... by Nos. · · Score: 1

      Forgot to mention, I know several companies that adjust their work hours based on time of year... of course most of the work they do is outside, so it makes sense. My brother-in-law works for the city. In the winter they work 8:00-4:00. In the summer, they switch to 7:00-3:00 so they spend more time working in the (cooler) mornings.

    18. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is soooooo last millenium...and we resent it


      We're asking a minimum 110% these days...

    19. Re:Time for a change... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      The Babylonians started it, they seperated circles into 60 minutes, and those into smaller 60 sections called seconds. Similar to our 360 degrees around a circle measurments.

      Note we still use these today in degrees-minutes-seconds of our longitute latitute.

    20. Re:Time for a change... by pthisis · · Score: 1

      The Babelonians. I am not making this up

      You mean the people who built the tower of Babel?

      Seriously, the Babylonians used a sexagesimal (base-60) counting system. It's theorized that the modern time (and angle) systems were influenced by that, but no one has ever produced any solid evidence for it that I know of.

      Base 60 is supposedly nice because it has a lot of convenient factors (1,2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,30).

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    21. Re:Time for a change... by brunson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone with a background in math will tell you base 12 or base 60 is much better to do math in. The more integer divisors your base has, the easier it is to do division without going into fractions. In a 12 hour day, what's half of that, or a third or a quarter? It's even better in a 60 minute hour where you have a factors of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30. What do you have for 10? 2 and 5. 100? 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25 and 50. Don't push for getting rid of base 60 time, push to change our number system to base 12.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      Jesus loves you, I think you suck
    22. Re:Time for a change... by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That way, there would be none of this bullshit confusion about 'what time is that here', or 'what is the time there'. It's GMT. The same damned time everywhere.

      I think you're missing the basic purpose of telling time. Which is to say that no matter what it says on the clock, it's the "same damned time everywhere", so your solution accomplishes nothing. Time is linear - you don't actually go back in time if you take a flight that lands in one place "earlier" than when it left (I know you know this, but your premise suggests otherwise). The purpose of having a time standard that we can all read is as a frame of reference. Your solution is to eliminate that frame of reference. I don't see how this makes things simpler.

      If it's morning where I am in NYC, it's still going to be night in Hawaii regardless of what the clock says. I still need to remember that if I want to call somebody there, or otherwise communicate. Just because my watch says it's 4 AM (GMT) doesn't mean all those Hawaiians are going to be awake.

      You're looking at things backwards. Time zones make it easier to deal with this issue, because we can easily say "oh, it's six hours earlier in Hawaii - that means people must still be asleep." Take away the time zones and you're stuck doing calculations about distance and solar cycles for every single place on the planet you've got to deal with. Is it really easier to say "well, Hawaii is 5,500 miles east, and the earth rotates at X miles an hour; therefore, Hawaii will have sunlight in 6 hours" than it is to just know that Hawaii's 6 hours behind us?

    23. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freak, if we're going to do this, why not switch to the Metric system as well!

    24. Re:Time for a change... by guaigean · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is probably the most logical solution, but what would happen to all those famous songs like "Working 9 to 5"? Working 14:00 to 22:00 just doesn't have the same ring.

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    25. Re:Time for a change... by shawnce · · Score: 1

      Ok so put everyone in the same time zone... now what do you do to understand if it is day light or not, work hours or not, etc. when you need to call someone, etc.?

      One way or a another you need to understand this information... what is your proposal if everyone is using the same time zone?

    26. Re:Time for a change... by Golias · · Score: 1

      *insert the typical "Time of day is relative to the sun's relative position to your area" and "noon is supposed to be when the sun is overhead" and...

      Dismissively rattling off those points does not change their merit.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    27. Re:Time for a change... by dadragon · · Score: 1

      Well, where I live in the summer It's light out till 11pm, and the sun is back up by 4am. So I a=was surprised when it was full dark fairly early in California. It just felt weird.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    28. Re:Time for a change... by croddy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The only way that right-hand drive makes sense is if most people are left-handed.

      I, for one, prefer to shift gears with my right hand.

    29. Re:Time for a change... by brunson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question becomes "What time do you start work over there?" "What time do you wake up over there?"

      You have to ask that anyway. Just because I start work at 8am in Denver doesn't mean I can assume that everyone everywhere starts work at 8am. I can't even assume that in the *same* timezone.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      Jesus loves you, I think you suck
    30. Re:Time for a change... by Golias · · Score: 1

      Today primetime television starts at the same time everywhere, not because it's the same number on the clock but it's the same time of day.

      Actually, it starts at 7:00 in the Central time zone, but 8:00 everywhere else. A hold-over from the fact that most American "farm country" used to be in the midwest, and farmers go to bed earlier.

      This is why you sometimes hear networks promoting a show as airing at "9, 8 central."

      Consider this nit to now be picked.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    31. Re:Time for a change... by interiot · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new 12-toed overlords.

    32. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Time is clearly not meant to be decimal-based. You can of course separate a day into arbitrarily many sections and call these sections anything you like. A 1000 wobbles per day perhaps. The bigger units of time are the real problem: The year can not be described by an integer number of days. If you don't want to do away with months, these are based on the moon and the only way to have an integer number of months per year is to not have them be precisely synced to the moon phase. Then you have the problem that a reasonable good approximation of the moon phase leads to a number of days by which the number of days per year isn't divisible, so you get months with more days and months with fewer days by dithering the error over the year. It's really hopeless, in terms of numerical elegance.

      60 and 24 at least have some nice numerical properties:

      60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15 and 30.

      24 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12.

      Try that with 100: 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25 and 50. Much less flexible.

    33. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gosh, I'm sure glad it has one as a factor! I hope we never never use a base that doesn't.

    34. Re:Time for a change... by operagost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You must be new here!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    35. Re:Time for a change... by idontgno · · Score: 1
      You don't need 12 digits to count base-twelve. Just count your hands as digits.

      So your overlords will be, as usual, the same decimally-digited humans as they've ever been.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    36. Re:Time for a change... by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Actually - God thought it up, since those measurements are at least partially based on the rotation of the earth around its axis, the movement of the earth around the sun, and the movement of the moon around the earth.

    37. Re:Time for a change... by aaron.rowe · · Score: 1

      As a Rightie myself I prefer to have my right hand controlling where my car is going while my left hand is shifting gears.

      And I have driven with both setups.

    38. Re:Time for a change... by Golias · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You must be new here!

      I am to you, user 62405.

      Having been around as long as you have, I'm surprised that joke hasn't gotten old yet.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    39. Re:Time for a change... by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      Yes, because other countries are so generous that their national interests are irrelevant...

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    40. Re:Time for a change... by brunson · · Score: 1

      But the obvious downside of that is you live in Saskatchewan (Canada).

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      Jesus loves you, I think you suck
    41. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now that's just CrazyTalk.

    42. Re:Time for a change... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Any excuse to (re)teach people to drive has my support, but only if we can get stricter standards, that actually require people to know how to drive to be recertified to drive on the left hand side.

    43. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always 6:00 ? Cool if it's PM, kinda sucky if it's AM.

    44. Re:Time for a change... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But what happens when I'm in Michigan and need to call a client in California?

      You know his hours of operation.

      You work from 12:00-20:00, he works from 15:00-23:00. You keep that in your contact information from him. He publishes it in his .VCF.

      Your PIM tells you when you bring up his record if he's working now so you don't have to burn any neurotransmitters figuring it out.

      This is the same as figuring out if the Target down the street is open yet.

      It's also great in that it would let people work closer to their natural circadian rhythms. Here in New Hampshire people assume everybody works 8-5, but in New Jersey, people start work at 9. So, already the current system is broken.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    45. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..in which case you could *still* break an hour into 100 smaller parts instead of 60 smaller parts. It all depends on your defitions of the units. ..besides, the Sun revolves around the Earth, any Christian knows that :P

    46. Re:Time for a change... by jZnat · · Score: 1

      I know, but I've seen this exact discussion happen at least 5 times in the past 2 weeks on /.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    47. Re:Time for a change... by justfred · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, right-hand-drive originated for just that reason - because if you were approaching someone on a horse, you'd want to pass to the left so that your sword hand would be read.

      Napoleon taught his troops to fight with their swords in their left hands, to surprise the British. Which is why the continentals would pass to the right.

    48. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Zones don't make this any easier. It's just a popular myth. I am currently in the BST timezone, at what times, UTC can you call me at work? Make sure you use your clever "timezones" to get it right, because if you have to _ask_ me then you've disproved your point

      We used to have a different time in every town, because each town would set its church or town hall clock separately and people would set smaller clocks by observing the large ones. Efficient transport and telecommunications got rid of that idea, but in the process people moaned endlessly that it would upset things.

      Then countries each had their own time standard. You'd travel due south for a few hours and find that time had changed by fiat because you'd entered a foreign country. Again people said that fixing it would cause confusion and it was a waste of time to try... but look where we are now.

      In the larger scheme of things time is not absolute and allowances must be made. But on a small piece of rock floating in space it's stupid to create multiple "zones" of time and separately maintain them. Of course most Americans are asleep when the French wake up for work, and so what? Should lazy people have a separate timezone? Should +1 offset TV channels show a clock that's an hour behind everything else? Of course not. One planet, one time.

    49. Re:Time for a change... by jZnat · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's so that it's hidden from the normal users! We don't want anyone to mess with that timezone a la the US Government is doing right now, so we prefix with the dot and chmod it to 0700

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    50. Re:Time for a change... by msuzio · · Score: 1

      That has been tried before. Didn't work out too well.

    51. Re:Time for a change... by Hawke666 · · Score: 1

      But that problem exists anyway. I work 11am to 7pm, but some of my friends work 9 am to 5 pm, others work 7am to 6 pm ... Guess what, we manage to coordinate our schedules to be able to hang out together.

      And as to people in other time zones, if a meeting is set up there's still a question of which timezone they mean, and daylight "savings" just adds to the confusion, especially since some places change at times different from others.

      It seems like dropping timezones would have the effect you mention as being positive. "Meet me at 10:00" is unambiguous, you just have to decide "what do I do at that time?" instead of "do you mean my time or yours? Is DST in effect there? What's the offset there in that case? Is DST in effect here? What's the offset here in that case? So the time here is x:xx. What do I do at that time?" Sounds a lot easier to me. And "what time is it there" is just a currently necessary short-circuit for calculating the difference between places so you can ask "can we meet/call/whatever at x:xx your time" ... no one ever schedules meetings by asking "what time do you start work" or "what time do you wake up"! ... "what time is it there" says little to nothing about when someone works, wakes up, or is available to meet/talk.

      Hell, for people in what is currently the same time zone it would make exactly *zero* difference in arranging meetings.

      And it would make anything involving multiple timezones much much easier. Plane tickets, bus/train schedules, meeting arrangements, etc. And all we'd "lose" by dropping time zones is something we don't have anyway: everyone working exactly the same hours.

    52. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I am going to learn to use base 12 as a commonplace counting system just because I'm progressive like that.

    53. Re:Time for a change... by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      You mean the people who built the tower of Babel?

      No, no. Babelonians are the female Babylonians after they grow up....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    54. Re:Time for a change... by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      A *real* math geek will tell you that balanced base 3 is the best way to go (i.e., the digits are -1, 0, and 1). The is the densest way to store and calculate numbers. After all, why choose a system that's easy for humans when it's not humans that do most of the calculating any more?

      In any cas, the one true system of measure - the Furlong-Fortnight-Firkin system - is easy in both base 10 and base 12, you can't beat it!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    55. Re:Time for a change... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, that'll work...

      "Do you know what time it is?!"

      "Nine o'clock, same as everywhere else."

      "Nine o'clock is 'still asleep time' in California you frigging idiot!"

      The entire world has time zones. Time-Life will be only too happy to educate you on this with a nice desktop time zone calculator absolutely free with your 52 week subscription. Or they did for many many years.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    56. Re:Time for a change... by Momoru · · Score: 1

      That would be a much greater hassle for everyone....

      Current hassle: Reset clocks twice a year

      Proposed hassle: Everytime any daylight sensitive event occurs, must update everyone on specific time. So fox would say :American Idol comes on at 1:00 GMT if your New york, 02:00GMT in chicago, 3:00 GMT if your in reno, and 4:00GM if your in california, etc etc" for every single show. When you travel now, you must calculate how many time zones you went through to figure out what time you should sleep and what time you should rise...this would happen on a daily basis instead of just setting your watch once, as its harder to remember that you wake up at 13:00 GMT in california even though you've been waking up at 10:00 GMT your whole life in new york...and so on and so on. Half of the point of time is to give you a conception of what time of the day in relation to the sun being out/sleeping etc, is.

      Oh but i forgot, your first posts are always either regurgitations or flamebait, and i guess i took the bait.

    57. Re:Time for a change... by lgw · · Score: 1

      They have no merit beyond habit. Once you adapted to a new system, the new system would be no harder to use. DST is annoying precisely because it messes with this habit twice a year.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    58. Re:Time for a change... by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      Don't push for getting rid of base 60 time, push to change our number system to base 12.

      How about base-60 instead>

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    59. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Babylonians started it, they seperated circles into 60 minutes, and those into smaller 60 sections called seconds. Similar to our 360 degrees around a circle measurments.
      I had a German college math teacher who told us that Hitler decided the Babylonians were semetic, Jews, and therefore the 360 degrees in a circle was another Jewish conspiracy.

      Hitler mandated that circles in the reich must have 400 degrees. That obviously, went as far as the reich did.
    60. Re:Time for a change... by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ever try to choose a meeting time on a con-call with 3 or more time zones? It always turns into an incoherant babble until someone asks "OK, what time *EST* do we have the next call". The current system sucks for agreeing on a time.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    61. Re:Time for a change... by bart416 · · Score: 0

      The 60 - 60 - 24 - 7 - 12 scheme is verry logical. 60 is from the babylonian math system that was 60numbers based instead of 10 numbers based math system we use. 60 can be diveded by mutch more numbers so using it to solve complex things comes out rather easy. 24hours is about the time it takes the earth to spin 1 time around its y axis. 32days in a month is just a number that is used to make it easy to express seasons. 32 + 29 days is to make the shedule right. So its verry logical. And i don't actualy have problem with timezones. Its easy to calculate for me since i am in GMT +1 zone:)

    62. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing to also keep in mind is daylight savings is going the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere so it gets even more complicated for example when figuring out the time difference between USA and Brasil.

    63. Re:Time for a change... by CrazyTalk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but I'm Jewish ;-)

    64. Re:Time for a change... by moonbender · · Score: 4, Funny

      I once figured that we should just use Absolute Universe Time. Universe time starts at Zero (no unit)--the time when the universe started to exist--and the current moment AUT always is 100% (or just One). All other dates are given as a percentage relative to this. Dates in the past are between 0 and 1, moments in the future are larger than 1.
      Of course, this introduces a number of minor inconveniences. First off, since the universe started to exist, as far as we can tell, some 16 billion years ago but our typical time needs are in the manner of hours and days, this leads to extremely minor fractions: "I'll meet you at 100.00000000009%" or "I was born at 99.99999999999983%." Second, the refence to a given moment in time changes, ie 50% AUT isn't the same in 5 minutes or 5 seconds, since the total time between 0% and 100% AUT always increases. So you'd have to take that into consideration when using AUT.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    65. Re:Time for a change... by Schnee · · Score: 3, Funny

      I heard that the Babylonian king went to his most trusted advisors and asked what base should they keep time in. All six of the advisors simultaneously held up both hands, finger spread....

    66. Re:Time for a change... by leoxx · · Score: 3, Funny

      My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!

    67. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do talk crazy...

      Man made up the divisions of those measurements.

    68. Re:Time for a change... by ZiakII · · Score: 1

      We're already a global community...it only makes sense to adopt a global time. Of course, asking the country that still uses Imperial measurement units to spearhead this change might be asking a bit much...

      We already do that its called Zulu time or Coordinated Universal Time more information can be found here.

    69. Re:Time for a change... by Orne · · Score: 2, Informative

      But explain to me the significance of daylight savings time. I mean really.

      In the pre-electricity "modern" era, families that stayed up after dark would light their homes with candles and oil lamps, which could get quite expensive ... The idea was proposed by Benjamin Franklin (known for his strong work ethic), that if the clocks were moved earlier towards the dawn in the summer, then there would be plenty of daylight in the evening after work, and thus countless candles and barrels of oil could be saved.

      Extrapolating that to today, there is still a chronological swing to the usage of energy... in the bulk power industry, this is called a "load curve", and basically follows a sine wave... there's a valley in usage over the early morning period when everyone is asleep, and as people wake up, the load increases in the "morning ramp", reaches its peak in the afternoon, and drops off in the late evening as people head to sleep.

      Now, moving the clocks to line up with the daylight periods would shift the energy usage one hour earlier in the day. In the morning in the summer, the sun is already up, so you're not going to save much electricity. However, by shifting the evening clocks forward, it removes some of the "lighting" time in the evening, which lowers load on the system, allows the generators that match load to drop their output lower earlier, they burn less fuel, and the economy as a whole saves money on imported fuel.

    70. Re:Time for a change... by Xoc-S · · Score: 1
      Except that GMT hasn't been used as the international time standard since January 1, 1972. It has been replaced by UTC.

      I've been saying that local time should be done away with for a long time. There is, however, the concept of relative daylight. People say 8 a.m. when they mean "morning", noon when they mean "middle of the day", 6 p.m. "when they mean "late afternoon", etc. The idea is to give some idea of how much daylight there is or is left.

      To separate local time from an absolute time scale we need more precise words for the relative daylight. Things like store hours should all be stated in UTC, but the relative daylight words should indicate where the sun is overhead.

    71. Re:Time for a change... by Taevin · · Score: 1

      Let's see... Someone posts something that has some valid points but didn't put any thought into solving the problems he mentioned, and he gets modded insightful. Someone posts a response that addresses the problem in a non-inflammatory way, and he gets modded troll... riiiight.

    72. Re:Time for a change... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      I live in Finland. What do you mean by "sun is overhead"?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    73. Re:Time for a change... by william_w_bush · · Score: 3, Interesting

      base 4. started using base 4 math in my head as an experiment a few years ago, so much easier, makes hex trivial. all addition has 4 possibilities, add quarter, add half, add 3/4 or shift up. the human brain is better at thinking in quarters than percents or 1/8'ths or 1/60's, whatever. seriously try it, takes like a day to figure out, and you can upconvert to hex by just grouping digits on top of each other
      ex.
                    0 3
      2f = 2 3

      just my 2c, but made math hella easier, and helps even more with higher dimensional math because you can visualize and manipulate halves and quarters much better than 2/5 and 7/10.

      --
      The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
    74. Re:Time for a change... by Golias · · Score: 0, Troll

      Okay, first an acknowledgement of one of my own mistakes gets modded down as "Troll", now a light-hearted comment which could not possibly inspire flame has been modded down as "Flamebait."

      Look's like some frisky moderator wants to bitchslap me today. Heh. Might as well give it up, kid. My Karma's so good, if I cancelled and restarted my acount I'd be coming back as the god Vishnu himself.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    75. Re:Time for a change... by Golias · · Score: 1

      Stop reading the comments to dupes, and your feelings of deja vu will probably subside.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    76. Re:Time for a change... by Tower · · Score: 1

      I think the bigger problem is that in all of the war rooms and political/economical scheming scenes in movies, all of those clocks (NY, London, Tokyo... etc) would all be showing the exact same time. Think of all of the poor clocks that would be put out of work by this!

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    77. Re:Time for a change... by pizen · · Score: 1

      Consider this nit to now be picked.

      Well, you're in luck. The two timezones with the most TV market are Eastern and Pacific. The broadcasters are lazy. The only reason they rebroadcast Pacific at the correct time (something at 8 Eastern is rebroadcast for 8 Pacific) is because so many people live there (including the broadcasters themselves) and don't want to watch primetime TV at 5 in the afternoon. They don't care about Mountain and Central.

      Of course, I don't have any supporting evidence. But neither do you.

    78. Re:Time for a change... by jazzman251 · · Score: 1

      push to change our number system to base 12.

      that might also involve pushing the evolution of the six fingered hand...

    79. Re:Time for a change... by Peyna · · Score: 2, Informative

      "OK, what time *EST* do we have the next call".

      Which will still confuse the people that know that "EST" does not mean "Eastern" but "Eastern Standard Time," and the only state that is on EST right now is Indiana. Everyone else is on CDT or EDT. (CDT and EST just happen to coincide at the moment).

      --
      What?
    80. Re:Time for a change... by coaxial · · Score: 1

      And while on the topic... who thought up this crazy 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day.

      I believe that was the Babylonians.

    81. Re:Time for a change... by Fnord666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder why Bill Gates had them change this?

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    82. Re:Time for a change... by TrevorB · · Score: 1

      Thirds.. Ha! Quarters! Hmmph!

      Here in Metric Canada we divide everything into halves and fifths!

      You can keep your imperial thirds to your own country, thank you very much!

    83. Re:Time for a change... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      We'll chalk it up to an accidental mod, just to be generous. Otherwise we'd have to assume it's one of those dolts on my Foes list exacting their swift revenge.

      *wiggles pinkie* ;)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    84. Re:Time for a change... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 2, Funny
      You don't need 12 digits to count base-twelve.

      I found this new book on Amazon: "Men are base-21 and women are base-20"

    85. Re:Time for a change... by eric76 · · Score: 1

      It would be more interesting to return to the days when 12 m (noon) meant the sun was at the meridien.

      One big change would be on those occasional news shows where they show a line of clocks showing the time in various locations. The minute hand is completely wasted because only the hour hand is different.

    86. Re:Time for a change... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1
      business can determine what hours they want their employees to work, based on the amount of daylight available at that particular time of year
      But then you would have the confusion of going to the other side of the country and trying to figure out what time they go to work there rather than just adjusting your watch +/- a couple of hours. I think it would be more confusing.

      Just have internal time be in seconds, globally. Then just define days as XXXXXX-XXXXXX.
      6 roman numeral 10s - 6 roman numeral 10s would be 0 everywhere. midnight already?

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    87. Re:Time for a change... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      > But the obvious downside of that is you live in Saskatchewan (Canada).

      There's always Arizona, Hawaii, and certain parts of Indiana.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    88. Re:Time for a change... by thefirelane · · Score: 1

      Ok, firstly... all the examples you cite in the beginning are based off political determination of time... which is inherently arbitrary. Timezones are based off a relationship to a certain portion of earth and the sun, which is not arbitrary.

      Secondly:
      at what times, UTC can you call me at work?
      Isn't that the point of time zones? To show the relative times between two places? If, as you say, we should all have the same time... should we all go into work at the same time GMT, so that we can all call each other during business hours? So presumably the Americans would go to work in the morning, and leave in the evening... but the Chinese do it the opposite? (or vice versa_
      With you 'one time zone', as the poster mentioned... everyone would read 6:00 GMT... but to call anyone you'd still have to stop and think "wait, their 6:00 GMT is like our 12:00 GMT" So instead you've just added a layer of complexity. What's the point of that? (unless, as I mentioned, you force some people to work at night)

      IHBT

    89. Re:Time for a change... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I'd rather move to base 10 everything than stick to a Babylonian numbering system.

    90. Re:Time for a change... by benjamin264 · · Score: 1

      How could it work? As if 'French' was not bad enough... Revolution? What would they know about revolution? Now maybe the 'French Surrender Caldendar...'

    91. Re:Time for a change... by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but if you use your fingers to count in binary (up is on, down is off) then you can count a lot higher than just adding your hands as a single digit in base-10.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    92. Re:Time for a change... by pg110404 · · Score: 1

      ...everyone can just use GMT.

      How about UTC?.... UTC and GMT are essentially the same. As I understand it, GMT however may be subject to (although may or may not actually implement) daylight savings time, thus for half the year could really confuse someone. UTC is UTC, not matter the time, season or geo-political orbits.... it follows the sun, not how we silly humans would like the time to be so we can get an extra hour of daylight.

      Besides, what the hell does daylight saving time have anything to do with saving energy anyway? All they can hope to accomplish is to get people to get on with their routine an hour later. Unless someone thinks, just because it's dark, we'll go to bed earlier and so won't waste as much energy.

    93. Re:Time for a change... by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      But, to be fair, the comparison is a bit weak. Internet Time was NOT recognizable as time... it was just a fractional value of, what, 1000?

      It does seem that eventually, we will move to one single universal time... but I do not think the communication revolution is going to be when. Instead, I believe that it will be the travel revolution (i.e. when taking a hop from L.A. to Paris is like driving from L.A. to Vegas today). When there is almost no commitment required to actually TRAVEL anywhere in the world... THEN I believe we'll see people start to be readier for this change.

    94. Re:Time for a change... by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Based on the fact that the earth revolves around its axis roughly 360 times per year, and there are 12 months (cycles of the moon) in the same time frame. It all lends itself very nicely to a base-12 time system of 24 hours in a day (12 daylight/12 darkness), 60 minutes to an hour, etc.

    95. Re:Time for a change... by toad3k · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the way I understand it, lighting doesn't matter. It won't affect street lights, factories, heaters, air conditioners, industrial machinery power usage, vehicles or damned near anything else. Lighting is something like less than 13% of average home usage, yearly. So I seriously doubt it would cut that by more than a single percentage point, tops.

      So where's this mysterious benefit I keep hearing about?

    96. Re:Time for a change... by Ambush+Commander · · Score: 1

      Well, at least it's not every-once-in-a-while 61 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day. [/lying]

    97. Re:Time for a change... by leenoble_uk · · Score: 1

      You can count up to 60 on your hands like this:

      Open your left hand palm facing you. Now point with your thumb to the bottom division of your index finger. One.
      Now point to the middle section. Two.
      And the top of your index finger. Three.
      Then start at the bottom of your middle finger. Four. and so on until you reach the top of your little finger. Twelve.
      Now open your right hand palm facing towards you and close your thumb towards your palm. This one digit down records the Twelve. Two digits, twenty-four and so on until you have a fist (Sixty).

      Alternatively you might also keep track of the twelves the same way you do the units in which case a full set would get you 144. Gross

    98. Re:Time for a change... by TClevenger · · Score: 1

      Which is why I use "daylight wastings time" to refer to the time that's not DST.

    99. Re:Time for a change... by Romeozulu · · Score: 1

      >>It is as impossible to steal "intellectual property" as it is to steal fire.

      But if you don't stop borrowing my fire without paying me for the work I put into starting it, I will stop and you'll freeze.

    100. Re:Time for a change... by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      Intresting, but something in my gut tells me it would be easier to switch time to base 10, then our numbering system to base 12 ;)
      You mathematicians are still free to use base 60 for circles.
      But for the rest of us I'd just settle with knowing how many hours 12412 seconds is.
      Which in the current system is 3.4477777777777777777777
      But in metric time would be an obvious 1.2412 :)

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    101. Re:Time for a change... by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Metrric will never make it in the US and besides I'm not buying a new clock for metric time. The only way the US could get people to change is if we changed our electricity to 100 Hz so my clock would no longer work.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    102. Re:Time for a change... by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of having 13 months in the year. That way all the months have 28 days except for one. You could make it December. That way, all your bills that are due on the 8th of the month (or whatever) are due on the exact same day (Monday or whatever) for the entire year. Then we hit December(or whatever the last month of the year would be) and that switches everything for the following year. And while we're at it, we could move OCTOber, NOVEmber, and DECEmber to be the 8th, 9th, and 10th months respectively, like they are supposed to be.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    103. Re:Time for a change... by ergowa · · Score: 1

      The one downside is that it assumes a certain amount of knowledge on my part that may or may not exist. If I don't have access to your time information (say I'm off the grid and only have a rotary phone and a paper address book), I will only attempt to contact you in a probabilistic fashion. That is to say, I try to call you during normal business hours where at least my odds of reaching you are better than they would be in the middle of the night. Since people are still driven by circadian rhythms, more often than not, the math is easier with a time zone if I don't have your schedule at hand. And at least, if I call during business hours, I can leave a message with a not entirely unreasonable expectation the person I'm trying to reach will call me back soon, rather than five or six hours later. I think it's the same reason telemarketers always call around dinner time... Hey! If we got rid of time zones, they'd have to work to figure out when to call me. Kind of like the bit tax on spam. I *like* that idea.

    104. Re:Time for a change... by tehshen · · Score: 1

      We need metric time damn it!

      Wheee!

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    105. Re:Time for a change... by killawatt5k · · Score: 1

      are you being *cough* not *cough* funny? Oh yea I forgot the babylonians were compete dumbasses, after all they couldn't even port to GNU/Linux their Abbacus...Idiots! sorry I just happen to know a few things about history.

    106. Re:Time for a change... by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      You're looking at things backwards. Time zones make it easier to deal with this issue

      I don't think its backwards. Its the way UNIX does it, and it works well. The system keeps time by GMT in seconds since 1970, the time is reported (usually) as some localtime offset of GMT, but the _real_ time is always GMT. I've used this feature when I was working on a system that was 4 timezones away from me, and it was driving me bonkers to see file timestamps that were "current", but 4 hours off of my local time. I changed my TZ environment variable to my timezone, and now everything is in times that make sense to me.

      Side note: If you do this, be careful. I used to do 'sudo /etc/init.d/apache restart' or stop/start, and my TZ variable got inherited by apache, and started logging web traffic in another timezone, which was confusing for a bunch of people. I learned something by it though :)

    107. Re:Time for a change... by Febryle · · Score: 0

      I think it's time to change to Binary Time. It's either light (1) or dark (0). This would certainly make setting my alarm clock easier...

    108. Re:Time for a change... by buraianto · · Score: 1

      For some I read this as, "My car gets farty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!"

    109. Re:Time for a change... by mario_grgic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, base e (where e=lim (1+1/n)^n as n->+infinity) is the best base to use.

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    110. Re:Time for a change... by glsunder · · Score: 1

      It's literally "older than Moses". You can thank the Sumerians for it. Yep, those crazy people who brought us the wheel and beer also gave us 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour.

    111. Re:Time for a change... by Febryle · · Score: 0

      Easiest solution: Just pick up an move to Greenwich. Problem solved! I hear the shepherd's pie is lovely this time of year...

    112. Re:Time for a change... by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      Don't forget the part about the size of the Space Shuttle SRBs being ultimately delinated by the width of two horses' asses side-by side pulling a chariot!

      And Eli Whitney and the interchangable parts.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    113. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The months we have now are based on the synodic month, which is 29.531 days. That works out to 12.36 months per year, which is closer to 12 than to 13.

      13 months per year would be based on the sidereal month, which is 27.322 days. But that doesn't come much closer: 365/27.322 gives 13.36 months per year. Thirteen 28 day months would be just as bad an approximation as our twelve months. But instead of being based on something which actually has some relevance to humans, the phase of the moon, the 28 day month would be based on the position of the moon relative to the star background, which hardly ever concerns anyone.

    114. Re:Time for a change... by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

      All you need to know is roughly when noon/midnight is here and there, take the difference, round to the nearest hour, and use that difference to extrapolate times and relative time of day here versus there (keeping the international date line in mind of course). It's exactly the same.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    115. Re:Time for a change... by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Maybe for people with 12 fingers it will be easy to learn how to count in a kindergarten...

    116. Re:Time for a change... by drauh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's a truly crap system. Decimal time? Come on. At least let us retain some of our intuition for what "1 pm" means. Quick, what does @248.000 mean? Is it lunch time in the Geneva? Everyone has a hard-earned intuition for what "5 minutes" or "a couple of hours" means. Don't mess with the units: offsets are fine because they're easy to deal with without resorting to pencil and paper.

      --
      This is a tautology.
    117. Re:Time for a change... by ndansmith · · Score: 1
      Here is a good site advocating a certain flavor of Metric Time:
      http://zapatopi.net/metrictime/

      They also have some nice little javascript clocks you can add to your webpage if you are an übernerd.

    118. Re:Time for a change... by JustOK · · Score: 2, Funny

      I tried to show my teacher how to do that up to 288. She said it was 2 gross.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    119. Re:Time for a change... by naoursla · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but if you are travelling on business it is nice to remember that you should be in the office by 8am wherever you are -- not 8am when in London, 3am when on the East Coast, and midnight when on the West Coast.

    120. Re:Time for a change... by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      I do not think that word means what you think it means. That would actually be Relative Universal Time. And it would be useless. There would be no way to tell when a date was recorded, because "today" would always be 100%, so you see "100%" in a Date field and have no clue when it happened.

    121. Re:Time for a change... by noamsml · · Score: 1

      So? it's not like there aren't any wood and matches in the world.

    122. Re:Time for a change... by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's a truly crap system. Decimal time? Come on. At least let us retain some of our intuition for what "1 pm" means. Quick, what does @248.000 mean? Is it lunch time in the Geneva? Everyone has a hard-earned intuition for what "5 minutes" or "a couple of hours" means. Don't mess with the units: offsets are fine because they're easy to deal with without resorting to pencil and paper.

      Sounds a lot like the arguments for sticking with the Imperial system of measurement. The rest of world managed the switch just fine, why would it be that much more difficult for time?

      --
      What?
    123. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!

      I live in Canada, and I wouldn't touch imperial units with 10 yard pole.

    124. Re:Time for a change... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      Okay, first an acknowledgement of one of my own mistakes gets modded down as "Troll", now a light-hearted comment which could not possibly inspire flame has been modded down as "Flamebait."

      and you keep posting??? Let's get him, boys!!!!

    125. Re:Time for a change... by moonbender · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware. Obviously date fields would have to auto-update to reflect that the refered moment in space has actually changed it's AUT (or RET). The time is absolute in so much as that it refers to moments by their relation to the absolute beginning of all time (relative to now). And I know it's not a practical way to deal with time (for many reasons), it's meant as a sort of humorous thought experiment...

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    126. Re:Time for a change... by cogg · · Score: 1

      Because it's naturally brighter in the evening, people use fewer electrical lights when cooking dinner.

      --
      "Never 'clear the air'. Instead, investigate all the subtle nuances of the word 'fester'." - R. Candappa
    127. Re:Time for a change... by makomk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That'd be Relative Univerrse Time. Absolute Universe Time would probably be the time since the start of the universe, in Planck periods. It's as close to a universal measure of time as you can get. The only downside is that watches would have to be rather on the large side to fit the display on.

    128. Re:Time for a change... by sleppy1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The base 60 numbering system goes back to (at least) Sumeria, which is most likely where the Babylonians got it from. Changing to base 10 time would not be so easy, since many units in the metric system depend on the current definition of the second. I'm not sure why when the French created the metric system they didn't change the second too, but they didn't, and unless we want to change the whole metric system, the second will have to remain. Of course, the U.S., which still hasn't adopted the metric system, could just make its own new measurement system with decimal time, and units based on that, and leapfrog from having the most obsolete system of measure in the world into the avant-garde.

      --


      "Nobody's ever going to make any money on the internet"
      --VP of the company I worked for, circa 1995
    129. Re:Time for a change... by Dark_Lord_Prime · · Score: 1

      There isn't one, except for the "saved money," because, as always, -that- is the primary driving force behind these types of decisions.

      Personally, I think we'd see the same money-saving power-usage drop simply by everyone using energy-saving light-bulbs/fixtures.

    130. Re:Time for a change... by bertramwooster · · Score: 1

      RTFA. You got it the other way around. It is a change for time, not time for a change.

    131. Re:Time for a change... by pg110404 · · Score: 1

      Because it's naturally brighter in the evening, people use fewer electrical lights when cooking dinner.

      Or perhaps people should be sold on the idea of replacing incandescent lightbulbs with screw in replacement fluorescent lights. They last longer and require far less electricity.If every single home were to replace just one incandescent lightbulb with a flurorescent light bulb, the power saved could power thousands of homes.... (I forget the exact statistics, but it's something like that).

    132. Re:Time for a change... by whmac33 · · Score: 1

      Just because my watch says it's 4 AM (GMT) doesn't mean all those Hawaiians are going to be awake.

      If it's 4AM GMT then it's 6PM Hawaii (-10), there's a good chance they're awake.

      But if you meant 4AM EST, then you shouldn't be up either!

      P.S. I agree that timezones are useful.

    133. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your base are belong to us!

    134. Re:Time for a change... by cogg · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps people should be sold on the idea of replacing incandescent lightbulbs with screw in replacement fluorescent lights.

      Your solution is certainly a good one (and one that I have already implemented in my own apartment, with a noticably reduced electricity bill); but why do you consider both solutions to be mutually exclusive?

      --
      "Never 'clear the air'. Instead, investigate all the subtle nuances of the word 'fester'." - R. Candappa
    135. Re:Time for a change... by crutchman · · Score: 0

      Actually, if we were doing that, it would most likely be UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) as it has "officially" replaced GMT

    136. Re:Time for a change... by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      The more integer divisors your base has, the easier it is to do division without going into fractions.
      So what? Do you really think people would have big problems because 100/3 is 33 1/3 and not a whole number? Do you really think people would struggle with dividing 10 by 4?
      Don't push for getting rid of base 60 time, push to change our number system to base 12.
      Don't be stupid. 12 and 60 are great for division, but they're not as good for multiplication. In the case of time division is probably more common than multiplication but that doesn't apply in most domains.
    137. Re:Time for a change... by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 1

      I just hope we'll be "readier" sometime soon.

    138. Re:Time for a change... by Fareq · · Score: 1

      Actually, frequently stuff in mountain time airs at the same time it does in Eastern and Pacific -- that is, a show that is aired at "7, 6 central" is frequently at 7:00 Mountain time.

      But sometimes, they do it the other way, and a show airing at "7, 6 central" will be at 6:00 Mountain time.

      And, sometimes, it's not rebroadcast at all, and so it airs at 5 Mountain time instead...

      Or at least, that's how it was last time I checked...

    139. Re:Time for a change... by Electrum · · Score: 1

      But for the rest of us I'd just settle with knowing how many hours 12412 seconds is.
      Which in the current system is 3.4477777777777777777777
      But in metric time would be an obvious 1.2412 :)


      It would also be obvious in base 60:

      seconds = 3|26|52
      hours = 3.26|52

    140. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going at the speed of 1.8 megafurlongs per microfortnight for the most of us now...

    141. Re:Time for a change... by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm an insensitive clod.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    142. Re:Time for a change... by mu22le · · Score: 1

      please tell me more about this...
      I have to do a lot of math (I study physics) it cold be interesteng...

    143. Re:Time for a change... by MrIcee · · Score: 1
      • If it's morning where I am in NYC, it's still going to be night in Hawaii regardless of what the clock says. I still need to remember that if I want to call somebody there, or otherwise communicate. Just because my watch says it's 4 AM (GMT) doesn't mean all those Hawaiians are going to be awake.

      Aloha... MrIcee here in Hawai'i, where I might like to inform you that even though we *are* the most remote place in the world, if it is morning where you are in NYC it might very well be morning here in Hawai'i. We are only 5 to 6 hours off of you (depending on DST) - Hawai'i doesn't (and won't) observe DST and the new laws will not change our devices here (thank Pele).

      Only if it is 6:00 AM or EARILER in NYC would it be before midnight in Hawai'i.

      (Plus, most of us get up around 4-5 AM here on the Hilo/Volcano side here on the Big Island since it's the east side and the sun rises over an ocean).

    144. Re:Time for a change... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      If I understand you correctly, I would have to disagree. While there are still problems, the amount of useful data needed is far less. Currently, if you are setting up a phone conference between CA and NY, you have to know both the time differential, AND what time both parties start and end work. In the US, there is a fair amount of flex in "normal business hours". Some places are 9am-5pm, some are 8am-4pm; out in the sticks, it's not uncommon to find places that run first shift 7am-3pm.

      Rather than all the confusion, if CA emails NY and says "Call me at 1600 UTC", they can both instantly know whether or not they are in the office at 1600 UT. While CA may have hours 1600 to 0000 UTC, and NY is at the office between 1300 and 2100 UTC, both immediately know that 1600 UTC is a workable time for a conference call.

      Sure, you still need to know that you can call your CA contact between 1300 and 0000, but that's LESS information than if you need to know that their office hours are 8am-5pm AND they are on a three hour differential. (and the way people in this country do math...) I think if we got rid of time zones, and businesses simply set their own local hours, it would simplify quite a lot of the stuff we do.

      Plane trip from LAX to JFK - leaving LAX at 1600, arriving at JFK at 2000. It will take four hours. What time should you get to the airport in LA? 1500, so you have time to check in. What time do you need to be picked up from JFK? 20:30 - add a half hour to get off the plane and get your baggage. All this is easy. And additionally, you just need to know that NYC works from 1300 to 2100, and you'll be arriving just before the end of the work day.

      As a former astronomer, UTC is far, far easier to work with than local timezones. And let me emphasize *former*, just in case I screwed my math up above. If I did, I know someone will point it out. Thanks in advance if you do.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    145. Re:Time for a change... by 2short · · Score: 1

      While it escaped me for quite some time, I've come to realize DST actually makes sense; not for computers, but for us humans who like light better than dark, particularly when getting out of bed.

      Regardless of how much sense it would make, people and businesses don't do what the GP poster suggests. That is, they do not, for the most part, adjust their hours seasonally (in the absense of DST). They pick an hour to open in the morning, and they stick with that time on the clock year round. Which would be fine, except that they tend to pick that hour such that most people almost never need to get up before sunrise, even in the winter. While their are certainly exceptions, more people seem more willing to stay up after sunset than to get up before sunrise. But this means that in the summer, people would still be staying up past dark (and using energy) even though there is quite a bit of daylight before they get up in the morning. Hence DST, which allows us to all adjust our hours seasonally in a coordinated manner.

    146. Re:Time for a change... by killawatt5k · · Score: 1

      actually they just revised the amount of time that a second is. i beleive it has to do w/the half life or some isotope or something, a guick google would find it out. If I'm not mistaked.

    147. Re:Time for a change... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Don't be stupid. 12 and 60 are great for division, but they're not as good for multiplication.

      If we were using base 12, multiplication by 12 or 60 would be fairly trivial.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    148. Re:Time for a change... by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      I found this new book on Amazon: "Men are base-21 and women are base-20

      Let's just all switch to binary. There's only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

    149. Re:Time for a change... by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Or just use binary, and count to 1023 on 2 hands.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    150. Re:Time for a change... by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      Don't be stupid. 12 and 60 are great for division, but they're not as good for multiplication.

      You don't get it. That's only because we currently use base10 numbers. For example, suppose you want to multiply 12-base10 by 4-base10. You claim this is inconvenient because it comes to 48-base10. But in base-12 numbering, it would be 40. 12-base10 is written as 10. So then, of course, one Gross, or 144-base10, is 100-base12.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    151. Re:Time for a change... by Surt · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but base-e is the obvious choice for real mathgeeks. Why restrict yourself to an integer system that doesn't work well for most math researchers?

      And balanced base-3? Why pick a base incompatible with the vast majority of computational systems available today? If you're going to go in that direction you obviously have to pick binary or quaternary, trinary is just wasteful!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    152. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to have a hogshead, but I divorced her.

    153. Re:Time for a change... by BananaJr6000 · · Score: 1

      FAVORITE TIME ZONE STORY: ABA star Marvin Barnes refusing to get on a flight that was going to leave Louisville at 8:00 ET and arrive in St. Louis at 7:57 CT. Said Barnes at the time, 'I AIN'T GETTING ON NO DAMN TIME MACHINE!!!'

      Times zones sux0r. Use UTC, GMT or Zulu time.
      As for our television viewing audiences, the start of primetime in your broadcast area would need to be published and you would need to know what broadcast zone you are located in. So some kind of zones would still need to exist... just not time zones.

      --
      Tonight at 8, 7 Central!

    154. Re:Time for a change... by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      > Knowing that it's 05:00 GMT doesn't necessarily tell you whether you're going
      > to be calling a person in the middle of the night or not.

      # export TZ=Canada/Eastern
      # date -d "tomorrow 05:00 GMT"
      Tue Aug 9 01:00:00 EDT 2005
      # export TZ=US/Pacific
      # !date
      date -d "tomorrow 05:00 GMT"
      Mon Aug 8 22:00:00 PDT 2005 ..works for me! :)

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    155. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wow thats a sucky mileage.

      http://utmin.charlesparekh.com/
      "A hogshead is equal to 63 gallons. We also know that the Parliamentary Statute of 1592 defined a mile to be 320 rods"

      So 0.13 of a mile using 63 gallons to do so.

      A more normal number would be 400,000 Rods to the Hogshead

    156. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet Time standard is metric, and bloody confusing :)

    157. Re:Time for a change... by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Hey, that may just be the solution to turning in all those papers on time..

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    158. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, too, have been intrigued by the idea of a base-4 culture. (Maybe someone will create an online game where everything is base-4. It would be interesting to see how well people adapted.)

    159. Re:Time for a change... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Base 3 is sadly the closest to base-e mere mortals can accomplish. If the "space" it takes to hold an integer is the base times the number of digits, base-e would be ideal, but base 3 is the best available.

      "Balanced" base 3 is really weird to work with on pencil and paper - a fun excercise, really. Like binary, you can multiply without a lookup table, and carries are rare on average.

      Furlongs are fun too: a furlong is 2*2*3*5*11 feet, or 2*2*2*2*3*3*5*11 inches - great when you need division with whole numbers. A furlong is also 10 chains or 1000 links, great when you're thinking metric. Here's a puzzle: on an old time survey chain, 1 link was 8 inches (inside length, which is the meaningful number) - how does that work? ;)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    160. Re:Time for a change... by Col.+Bloodnok · · Score: 1

      It does seem that eventually, we will move to one single universal time...

      We have a universal time system. Which planet are you living on?

    161. Re:Time for a change... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Years, months, and days are "hard-coded", but weeks, hours, minutes, and seconds are not. AFAIK, there's no reason we couldn't have 10 hours/day, 100 minutes/hour, and 100 seconds/minute. Of course seconds wouldn't be the same length as the seconds we have now (I'm too tired to calculate whether they're longer or shorter).

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    162. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a lot like the arguments for sticking with the Imperial system of measurement. The rest of world managed the switch just fine, why would it be that much more difficult for time?

      Because all the world already knows what an hour, fifteen minutes and 20 seconds means.

      What we need to do is simply to switch to 24-hours greenwhich time by default. For everyone.

      (and yes, that means you could get up in the morning at 02:00, get to work at 03:00, etc).

    163. Re:Time for a change... by nocomment · · Score: 1

      how about we develop a time based on epoch since 0 AD?
      Imagine the face on the watch that would have to display 63,229,280,501

      --
      /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
      /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
    164. Re:Time for a change... by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      My sig is probably still relavent to your post.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    165. Re:Time for a change... by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      I had a CS teacher comment to us that divide and conquer algorithms perform better on the average in the case where you split in two based on the ratio of e. Thus, split one side into 1/e, and the other in (e-1)/e

      Worst case, you can end up hitting the (e-1)/e side more often than you would hit a 1/2 side of the same length, but over all, you're more likely to occationally hit the 1/e side, which on average will save you more checks than you lose by hitting the (e-1)/e sides.

      So, the question is, since there are two whole numbers close to e, (2 and 3) which is actually the better to use on average for the ratio split? Sure, you get the maximum benefit at 1/e:(e-1)/e, but does the benefit drop off so fast that 1/3:2/3 is provably slower than 1/2:1/2 splits?

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    166. Re:Time for a change... by KaushalParekh · · Score: 1
      That way, there would be none of this bullshit confusion about 'what time is that here', or 'what is the time there'. It's GMT. The same damned time everywhere.

      But we would still have confusion about something like 'what time does the person we are calling wake up there'... not much difference. This problem will never go away.

    167. Re:Time for a change... by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      You don't get it. That's only because we currently use base10 numbers. For example, suppose you want to multiply 12-base10 by 4-base10. You claim this is inconvenient because it comes to 48-base10. But in base-12 numbering, it would be 40. 12-base10 is written as 10. So then, of course, one Gross, or 144-base10, is 100-base12.
      My point (which I admit I didn't clearly make) is that base 12 and base 60 systems are useful in certain situations (which involve more division than multiplication) but a general change to exclusive use of those systems is a ridiculous proposal. For a start you will have to throw away the multiplication tables that virtually every educated person over the age of 8 has in their brains. What's 5x7? Now it's 2B. We don't even have digits for 10 base 12 and 11 base 12. How quickly can you multiply in base 12 compared to base 10?
    168. Re:Time for a change... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      No, I'll find another source of fire, or make my own, and YOU will freeze.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    169. Re:Time for a change... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I love that method. It's my favorite counting method since I learned how to count months by the number of days in them:

      Make a fist with your left hand, your palm (with your fingers pressed into it) facing to your right. With your right hand, start counting months with "January", on both the knuckles and the intervening "valleys". Start with the closest knuckle, then wrap around to the closest knuckle again for "August". All the "knuckle months" have 31 days, the others ("valley months") don't. February, as you know, has 28 days, or 29, but accounting for that requires taking off your shoes :).

      Before that, my favorite hand-counting method was the Mayan system. It's commonly described as being represented by sticks, either endwise for "ones" or lengthwise bars for "fives", and cocoa beans (or oyster shells) for "zeroes". But it's also well suited to fingertips, stacked fingers, and fists, for those digits, in the amounts. It lets you count to their base 20 with two hands, and sequences of two hands for any number. Which could be used to count, or signal numbers clearly across market distances.

      I heard about the calendar hand counting from a grade school kid in San Francisco. And I heard about the Mayan hand counting from a group of New Age hippies in California's Marin County. Where did you hear about the base-12/60 hand counting?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    170. Re:Time for a change... by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps, but all of their base are belong to me.

    171. Re:Time for a change... by klept · · Score: 1

      You have an excellent point about why we should have standard time zones, and not Universal Coordinated Time worldwide. However, I think time zones should be done away with, and in their place just UTC for everywhere on the earth. Granted I, actually being from Hawaii, would have it harder knowing whether it was morning in Europe, but with our technological, and hence cultural changes, this is becoming less relavent. Many people in urban areas are actually living 24 hours a day, eg, 24 hour fitness centers, 24 hour restaurants, 24 hour retail stores, etc.. Let me give you a personal example. On the internet I am involved in a chat/conferance with people on the mainland US and in Western Europe. We are going to meet online and talk the following day. Some US people say they will be online at 2:00. I ask what timezone. And from there we spend a half hour or more, with several time zones, trying to figure out when each of us will or can be on. Standard time was created because of railroad schedual sequencing. UTC should be the only time because of internet pervasity and the world literally becoming one global village.

    172. Re:Time for a change... by pswayze · · Score: 1

      In Metric Canada, dividing 9/10's you!

      OUI OUI OUI, HA HA HA.

    173. Re:Time for a change... by Progman2000 · · Score: 1

      Examine alternatives based on their differences. In this case there is no difference: You have to know the persons hours of operation OR rough geographic area (from which you *guess* hours). If the person doesn't specify his hours you look at the physical information. Don't have it? Look at the area code. 800/866? Call the number and listen for "our hours of operation are foo to bar, blah-standard time".

      In this case, moving to a universal time can help. If the recording leaves off "blah-standard time" you don't have to continue guessing based on other clues in the message.

      Really, what good does it do you to know that I'm in a GMT-6 timezone? I still have to say 0800-1700L or 1200-2300Z for you to know when to call. What if I'm on the night-shift?

    174. Re:Time for a change... by Feanturi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Silly mods. This shouldn't have been modded 'Funny' but 'Informative' See here:

      http://users.pandora.be/worldstandards/driving%20o n%20the%20left.htm

    175. Re:Time for a change... by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      I didn't use the word system... one single universal time, as implied by this entire thread, means the same time anywhere on earth.

      RTFT. ;-)

    176. Re:Time for a change... by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      The best way to get quicker at math is to learn your hundreds times tables, to the 2 or 3 decimal, depending on how much your prof hates you.

      Either that, or just take a minor in math.

      --
      Sig
    177. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but made math hella easier"

      You hella must be from NorCal.

    178. Re:Time for a change... by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I could take offence to that! There are some good things in sastatchewan. Like, um, abandoned warehouses! Those are always fun!

      --
      Sig
    179. Re:Time for a change... by Jay+Carlson · · Score: 1
      You're channeling Rob Warnock:

      Myself, I like units of Planck time[1], approximately 5.391e-44 seconds,
      or roughly 1.855e+28 Planck ticks per femptosecond. ;-} ;-}

      Since "the estimated age of the Universe (4.3e17 s) is 8.0e60 Planck
      times"[1] (just under 203 bits), an absolute universal clock that kept
      Planck time could easily fit in a 256-bit counter, thus putting paid to
      all of those pesky Y[0-9]* bugs (and especially Y2038!) once and for all!!

      -Rob

      [1] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
              "The Planck time is the natural unit of time, denoted by t_sub_P.
              It is considered the smallest possible measurement of time. ...
              The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at
              the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length."


      Paul Repacholi then points out it would mean we'd have one and only one set of date routines...
    180. Re:Time for a change... by daveo0331 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, he's probably patented fire. If you try to start your own without paying the royalty, you'll be hearing from his lawyers.

      --
      Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
    181. Re:Time for a change... by Orne · · Score: 1

      Actually, utility companies are experimenting with paying you not to consume energy... go and look up "active load management". Why does this work? Because for those few hours a year, the price of electricity spikes up to $400/MW, and its cheaper to pay a few industrial customers to reduce output so the market price can drop back to the $80s/MW. (Market prices are cleared based on demand)

      30 years later, we're finally getting around to economic drivers to conserve energy, laissez-faire style..

    182. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had to use windows calc to verify that 10 / 4 is 2.5. I thought of the solution at first like this:

      Well if 4 x 2 = 8 and 4 x 3 = 12, then 4 x 2.5 must = 10.

    183. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I had a CS teacher comment to us that divide and conquer algorithms perform better on the average in the case where you split in two based on the ratio of e. Thus, split one side into 1/e, and the other in (e-1)/e
      Your CS teacher was full of shit---splitting sets into equal subsets is the best you can do for divide and conquer. For example, quicksort has O(N^2) worst case performance specifically because you can't guarantee to divide into two equally sized sets every time.
    184. Re:Time for a change... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I take it you live in Greenwich? ;)

    185. Re:Time for a change... by MorePower · · Score: 1
      they tend to pick that hour such that most people almost never need to get up before sunrise, even in the winter.

      That would be fine, the problem I have is that employers always pick a start time that is a close to dawn as possible in the winter, meaning you have to wake up in the dark in winter. Then when the days start to get long enough that you can start waking up in the light - BAM! - DST comes along and you go back to waking up pre-dawn again.

      I wish there was some way to convince employers to start work 1 hour after dawn (about 8:00am instead of 7:00am). At my current job, they even went further and recently bumped start time to 6:00am, effectively doing double DST. (I can simpathize though, they did it because the manual laborers have had a lot of trouble with heat exhaustion, so they wanted more to get done in the morning before it got too hot. Then in the hottest part of the afternoon most worker go home except the few pulling overtime).

    186. Re:Time for a change... by Louisville_Clark · · Score: 0

      Actually, Indiana just passed a law which takes effect next year which says that Indiana will also be on DST, but they still havn't figured out if it will be EDT or CDT

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    187. Re:Time for a change... by gauauu · · Score: 1

      That's how China does it. All one big time zone. Where I'm at, it's not bad, but from what I hear, the people out west have crazy working hours, sometime like 11am to 8pm, since it get light so late over there.

    188. Re:Time for a change... by Council · · Score: 1

      What is this junk?

      Densest way to store information?

      It's going to take some more explanation. How is that more dense? It seems so much more redundant and fuzzy and useless!

      Base 60 all the way.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    189. Re:Time for a change... by HD+Webdev · · Score: 2, Funny

      You work from 12:00-20:00, he works from 15:00-23:00. You keep that in your contact information from him. He publishes it in his .VCF.

      I, for one, welcome our new computer tell-you-when-to-call-people-instead-of-using-our- brains overlords.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    190. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no such yearf as 0 AD

      The early christians started counting at 1 - they weren't programmers or mathematicians.

      This is why the 21st century didn't begin until Jan 1, 2001

    191. Re:Time for a change... by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      My head just imploded. Hold on, let me go get my Nerd pants on...

    192. Re:Time for a change... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1
      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    193. Re:Time for a change... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, and ruin all the fun when I send one of my new troops to Supply to get a metric clock.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    194. Re:Time for a change... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      But then you might get the crap beat out of you when you get to 4. That is, if I counted correctly with that technique.)

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    195. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I have trouble believing a site that includes information like:
      "After gaining independence from England, however, they were anxious to cast off all remaining links with their British colonial past and gradually changed to right-hand driving."

      How can a country gradually change to right-hand driving? Cars would probably begin the trend, and then trucks could follow a few years later I guess.

    196. Re:Time for a change... by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      If you can figure out how to make the Earth rotate 100 times for each orbit around the Sun, then you have an idea!

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
    197. Re:Time for a change... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Imagine the "size" of a number in some base is the number of digits times the base (this is not an entirely arbitrary definition when it comes to storing numbers in silicon, BTW).

      For example, take the number 47

      47 base 10: the size is 20 (2*10)
      101111 base 2: the size is 12 (2*6)
      1202 base 3: the size is 12 (4*3)

      Obviously for any base the "density" (that is the value of a number / its storage size) will vary based on the number stored, but on average the closer to e the base is, the higher the "density".

      The amount of work it takes to add a digit in a base is in some sense proportional to the square of the base, as that's the size of the lookup table needed to perform the operation, but base 1 and "balanced" base 3 are special because you only have to deal with 1 and 0. That makes multiplication easier as well.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    198. Re:Time for a change... by lgw · · Score: 1

      err,that is, base *2* and "balanced" base 3. Base 1 is just weird.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    199. Re:Time for a change... by sleppy1 · · Score: 1
      The standard by which the second was measured was changed but not the length of time which it represents. It's still pretty much the same amount of time, just put in terms which would allow precise measurement. Also the definition in terms of quantum state transitions couldn't occur until the 20th century while the metric system is from around 1790.

      from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

      the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

      See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI

      There's a list of units about halfway down the page where you can see all the things that are defined in terms of seconds: hertz, newton, joule, pascal, coulomb, etc.

      --


      "Nobody's ever going to make any money on the internet"
      --VP of the company I worked for, circa 1995
    200. Re:Time for a change... by leenoble_uk · · Score: 1

      I can't remember exactly where I saw it. I'm fairly certain it was a documentary on TV from a very long time ago. It was explained as the reason why we have 60 minutes in the hour and 12 hours on the clock face and was the counting method favoured by Babylonians.

      I've also used the knuckle-valley calendar for most of my life. I can't remember where I picked it up from but it's definitely more effective than that stupid rhyme which has no reliable method for remembering which month to say next.

    201. Re:Time for a change... by unitron · · Score: 1
      "Hitler mandated that circles in the reich must have 400 degrees. That obviously, went as far as the reich did."

      I'm not any kind of math whiz but scientific calculators have a button for converting between degrees, radians, and that other thing and I thought I remembered that other thing having something to do with the number 400. A little Googling reminded me that that other thing is a "grad", and apparently either the metric crazed French Revolution or the British military are to blame.

      Fortunately there's no Third Reich button on modern day calculators.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    202. Re:Time for a change... by Murasaki+Skies · · Score: 1

      I prefer balanced ternary myself.

      --
      Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
    203. Re:Time for a change... by leenoble_uk · · Score: 1

      Have you tried maintaining the figure 8 or 64 using that method, or worse, try doing 192 without putting yourself in hospital.

    204. Re:Time for a change... by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

      30 days hath september
      april, june, and november
      if you simply can't remember
      note the rhythm, it'll help ya!

      Try not to forget february, it got the crap end of the rhyme. ;-)

    205. Re:Time for a change... by leenoble_uk · · Score: 1

      Except the stupid thing about that rhyme for the purposes of rememberin' is that lots of months have three syllables ending in ber and other months have one syllable, so you could equally say:

      Thirty days have september,
      april, may and december,

      or

      Thirty days have november,
      august, march and october,

      There is no system in place to prevent this, you just have to know (remember) what the months are in the first two lines which provides no benefit over just remembering them anyway.

      The knuckle thing requires no remembering except that February has 28/29 days which is something most people don't have a problem with.

      Slightly OT. Another common not-time-related rememberin' device is 'i before e except after c' which I never understood because it's bollocks. I always say it as 'i before e except after c and h and w and some other letters as well but not always, you just have to learn how to spell properly yourself'.

    206. Re:Time for a change... by famebait · · Score: 1

      That would have been a good snide remark, had it actually benn an informed one. There really is a marked difference in the track record, esp. whenever republicans are in power in the US.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    207. Re:Time for a change... by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

      There is no system in place to prevent this, you just have to know (remember) what the months are in the first two lines which provides no benefit over just remembering them anyway.
      Yes it does, as there is a rhyme there to help. The knuckle thing is more reliable (I hadn't heard of it until just now), but if you're talking in terms of just remembering them, a bad rhyme is better than none. Like the alphabet. The alphabet rhyme could have the letters rearranged, but I find it easier to remember a rhyme with 26 little words than to remember 26 little words in order with no structure at all!
      Anyway, I've always found I just have to remember the 'thirty days' and the rest comes naturally.

    208. Re:Time for a change... by Col.+Bloodnok · · Score: 1

      I was posting drunk :)

    209. Re:Time for a change... by necronom426 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't disagree with you more.

      I drive a right-hand drive car. I am right-handed and steer with my right hand. I find it very difficult to steer with my left hand, but changing gear with my left hand is very natural.

      I would think that doing accurate things like steering would be better done with your favoured hand. I would expect left-handed people to drive better with a left-hand drive car.

    210. Re:Time for a change... by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      I've been saying that local time should be done away with for a long time. There is, however, the concept of relative daylight. People say 8 a.m. when they mean "morning", noon when they mean "middle of the day", 6 p.m. "when they mean "late afternoon", etc. The idea is to give some idea of how much daylight there is or is left.


      We can still do this! I have a brilliant idea on this. Now instead of saying "it's 3 o'clock here" we can keep our existing time references (sunrise, sunset, noon, midnight, etc.). Only we can just say "Oh, yeah, it's 3 hours after noon here".

      Oh, wait, nevermind. Back to the drawing board I guess.

      Why is it that the air force solved this problem years ago but the rest of the world is still having such an issue of it? You can't abolish either! You need a universal time so that in complex situations (such as multiple aircraft from multiple timezones can meet up in the same location at the same time) everything will go smoothly without confusion. Then you need a local time to specify what time of day it really is somewhere. You need to explain to people in an easy way that "it's late at night so people will be asleep when we drop our bombs on this munitions factory". To do this it would just be said that "it's 0300L (local time... lima is easier to say in conversation, though), so everyone will be in bed." It's a lot easier. Just specify what timezone you're talking about or whether you're talking about universal/zulu/GMT/stardate/whatever.

      A few easy examples:

      "The plane will land at 1300L (lima/local)"
      "The plane will land at 2100Z (zulu/UTC/GMT)"

      "It's GMT-8 here."

      Of course daylight savings time screws with this. When I want to call friends in the states I not only have to calculate the timezone differences, but I have to take into account whether their state has daylight savings or not, I have to remember what days of the year daylight savings ends or begins, and then I have to remember to calculate that into whether I can call them or not.

      For example, here in japan, we're in GMT+9. The west coast of america is in pacific time, or GMT-8. The time difference would be 17 hours if you just added 9 and 8 to determine that japan is 17 hours ahead. Of course that may not take GMT[+0] into account, nor will it take into account california moving in and out of its timezone during daylight savings.

      I think the bottom line is that our system works great if we can get people to start specifying timezones or at least that they're referring to local or universal time. The problem comes when people start changing the time of day in one place but not in another, so everything gets all jacked up in relation to everything else. Why would the sun come up at 7:22AM here and 6:22AM in california on the same day? Shouldn't time zones help us avoid that confusion?
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    211. Re:Time for a change... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > you would have the confusion of going to the other side of the country and trying to figure out what time they go to work.

      by that logic you should change the calenders in the southern hemisphere, so hard to figure out if I need my coat in July when going to chile, if it was December their instead I would know so much easier.

      also assuming working hours were not cultural, you already need to figure that out. Working for a japanese company knowing the time difference helps little, since the people I deal with will start around 4am, and may be at their office for 16 hours their after.

    212. Re:Time for a change... by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like the arguments for sticking with the Imperial system of measurement. The rest of world managed the switch just fine, why would it be that much more difficult for time?

      What 'rest of the world' are you talking about?

      The British switched to liters, but they still measure distances in yards, still sell beer by the pint, and still post speeds in 'miles per hour'.

      In Puerto Rico, they sell gas by the liter, cans of coke by the ounce, and post speed limits in 'miles per hour'.

      That's just a small sample of just how much the rest of the world has 'switched over'.

      Certain imperial units stick around because the Metric replacements offer ZERO improvements. Liters are a nice change because they're easy: you can visualize a Liter as a 10x10x10 cube full of water, and they're approximately 1Qt.

      Switching time? That's the one thing the entire world seems to agree shouldn't change.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    213. Re:Time for a change... by japhmi · · Score: 1

      just my 2c

      No, no, no, you answer should be 2A...

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    214. Re:Time for a change... by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      Instead of shifting the clocks, why not just change business hours? Where is it engraved in titanium that "standard" business hours *must* be 9am to 5pm?

      Instead of mucking around with the clock, why not find some incentive to have working hours changed to 7am to 3pm? Or 8am to 4 pm? It's the same end result, and nobody has to fiddle with their clocks.

      In fact, why not drop DST completely? It serves no logical, useful purpose anymore.

    215. Re:Time for a change... by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      RTFC idiot. I didn't say that splitting on 1/e:(e-1)/e is faster in the worst case. I said in fact that it were slower in the worst case.

      Finding a specific number in an ordered list by splitting on 1/e:(e-1)/e is still O(log n). But, the advantage is that occationally you'll hit a smaller section rather than a larger section, and at the value of e for the generic split 1/n:(n-1)/n the best AVERAGE case is better than all other values.

      For n > e, you don't hit the smaller section enough to make up for not hitting it, and for n e you don't gain enough from hitting the (possibly) smaller section to make up for not hitting it.

      Quicksort, yes, has a worst case performance than say merge sort, but on the average, it does less work. Same with finding a value in a sorted list. If you split on 1/e:(e-1)/e then your average case will be better than even if you split on 1/2:1/2.

      The world doesn't usually run on worst-case senarios. We usually care about the average case more often than worst case. You just need to make sure that if you're using biased data, that your worst case isn't getting hit unusually often. (Such as using quicksort to sort a mostly sorted list.)

      But for unbiased data, quicksort and a 1/e;(e-1)/e partition scheme for findValInASortedList will be faster than merge-sort and a 1/2:1/2 partition scheme for findValInASortedList.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    216. Re:Time for a change... by pjp6259 · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of having 0 be the beginning of the universe, but why not keep it simple, and have 1 be the end of the universe, instead of current time.

      --
      Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
    217. Re:Time for a change... by pg110404 · · Score: 1

      I see advancing daylight hours one month to be a very trivial and somewhat dubious solution to a big problem. Where ever you are, you'll want the lights on if it's dark. Whether the sun is shining or it's pitch dark, you'll probably still have the TV on, food on the stove etc. At the time of the year in question, that means turning the lights on probably at 6:00pm sun time or 7:00pm sun time and leave them on (I don't, but some people do) for 3 or 4 hours before going to bed. In the meantime, they turn on the tv, cook their meals, etc. When you factor in how much electricity 2 or 3 light bulbs consume for one hour multiplied by 30 days over how much we willingly thow away (tv, etc), the reduction is more than a token amount.

      I'd much prefer to see the effort put in to energy saving appliances and devices so the effect can be noticed for the entire year.

      It's not so much a matter of ignoring one vs the other, but more along the line of optimizing a computer program. You don't start with optimizing the infrequently called functions, you start with the ones that are called over and over again. First you start with the biggest pigs that use the most electricity (old stoves, fridges, dryers, etc) and get those more energy efficient (a gov't rebate if you buy an energy saving appliance perhaps), then you worry about the trivial little things.... I don't feel guilty leaving an extra 60 watt lightbulb turned on for an hour or two in the dead of summer when I open the windows up on a cool night and let the house cool down without the use of the A/C (I have a programmable thermostat and it's set up to lower the temperature of the house in the evening when I'm not home. I live in canada and the nights can drop to 20c so it's a double whammy to open the windows up as well and the A/C runs for half as long to get the house to a cool 23c. By the next evening, the temperature is 27 but it's still comfortable).

      Think of all that energy we could save if everyone bought a $30 programmable thermostat and let the A/C run in the dead of summer at night when it's the coolest outside and the heat transfer is most efficient. (It's similar to how a hot cup of coffee cools down the most in the first 5 minutes, but takes the next 30 to reach room temperature. The greater the temperature difference between the hot and the cold, the faster the heat transfer).

      All I'm saying is the marginal savings by getting people not to use lights for that one hour for a month or so should be first focused elsewhere.

    218. Re:Time for a change... by 2short · · Score: 1


      Out of curiosity, what industry/job are you in? Different jobs tend to have different start times, but in every office job I've run across with a required start time that time was 9:00am. Most retail places seem to be 9:00 or 10:00.

      In any case, that's the reason for the "most" and "almost never" in my statement. "Business hours" are set collectively by society, but in a very messy fassion; obviously some peoples hours need to be earlier than others (so they can sell things to people before work for example). But if a lot of people have to get up in the dark very much, they don't like it, and hours tend to move later. But once most people have hours that don't bother them, those on the very early side of the average are out of luck.

    219. Re:Time for a change... by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      Really? Show me your evidence, please. Personally I find the current state of the republican party repugnant but that doesn't mean the rest of the world is out being a bunch of sweethearts.

      Oh, here...I'll even start you off...

      Kyoto Treaty

      Of course one example like this is not sufficient evidence.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    220. Re:Time for a change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to do 'sudo /etc/init.d/apache restart' or stop/start, and my TZ variable got inherited by apache, and started logging web traffic in another timezone

      Aye, great OS you got there. Th4t r00lz!!oneeleven!

    221. Re:Time for a change... by cogg · · Score: 1

      I'd much prefer to see the effort put in to energy saving appliances and devices so the effect can be noticed for the entire year.

      Again, I agree with (most of) what you are saying; however, we (society) in this case have already moved to optimise "an infrequently called function", that is, we implement DST.
      Are you recommending we put work (advertising abolition, creating devices that do not automatically switch, etc. ) into reversing this, whilst implementing other energy saving schemes? To me, it makes sense to maintain the status quo, wrt DST, and implement further energy saving schemes.
      PS: apologises for the delay in replying.

      --
      "Never 'clear the air'. Instead, investigate all the subtle nuances of the word 'fester'." - R. Candappa
    222. Re:Time for a change... by pg110404 · · Score: 1

      Are you recommending we put work (advertising abolition, creating devices that do not automatically switch, etc. ) into reversing this, whilst implementing other energy saving schemes?

      While I believe DST has many benefits beyond energy saving (why have the sun rise at 3:30am and set at 8:30pm when it can rise at 4:30am and set at 9:30pm giving an extra hour of summertime daylight to enjoy?), I believe there are bigger fish to fry than first focusing on the parts of diminishing returns. Don't get me wrong, I think an extra month of DST is a great thing, it will very likely have an impact on the environment wrt energy saving.
      When I first heard of extending DST as an energy saving scheme I wasn't entirely sure how it could realistically and effectively do that, but after thinking about it and how the simple fact of an extra hour of daylight would mean fewer lights on, it does seem reasonable. As I've suggested earlier, however, I see extending DST as a very minor solution that has diminishing returns, whereas focusing on getting the citizenry to replace older appliances with newer more efficient ones would return a greater yield in terms of energy savings.
      In answer to your question, I don't believe changing the status quo either way is really the place to start.I think, leave DST as is for now and simply put our effort into changing less efficient to more efficient appliances, THEN worry about dicking around with DST. The net result is a far greater impact on the environment.

    223. Re:Time for a change... by guet · · Score: 1

      but if you are travelling on business it is nice to remember that you should be in the office by 8am wherever you are

      Yeah, shame different countries, and even different companies, have completely different working hours and practices, which renders this point moot. In the UK or France you'd be too early for work, in Japan too late. You're still going to have to ask - what time do I come in to the office. You just won't have to fiddle with your watch all the time when you change zones.

      As more and more people change zones during their working day and hold teleconferences with people around the globe, this will become more of an issue.

      Personally I think it's easier to remember NYC is 5 hours ahead and just calculate from that, calculations like that will still work, (based off your current time), it's just that there would no longer be confusion over someone saying meeting at 10am when other people have to calculate what that means to them.

    224. Re:Time for a change... by pthisis · · Score: 1

      Another common not-time-related rememberin' device is 'i before e except after c' which I never understood because it's bollocks. I always say it as 'i before e except after c and h and w and some other letters as well but not always, you just have to learn how to spell properly yourself'.

      I always learned it as "i before e except after c or when sounded like "a" as in neighbor and weigh".

      Which is better but weird is still weird.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. WooHoo!!! by Slayback · · Score: 1

    Overtime for all to prevent the coming armageddon!

    1. Re:WooHoo!!! by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Overtime for all to prevent the coming armageddon!*

      * Offer valid only in case of armageddon.

      (Seriously, I know of one case where triple overtime was promised for people on staff overnight for Y2K readiness where, come the next day, the administration reneged.)

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  4. Nothing to see here. Please move along. by RangerRick98 · · Score: 1

    The change has already affected /.! The front page said the story was posted, but the story itself thought it wasn't! This is just the beginning of the chaos this change will inflict!!!

    --
    "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
  5. Moral travesty by fruity_pebbles · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Daylight savings time is an idiotic solution to a non-existent problem.

    (Yes, that's an opinion. Feel free to disagree.)

    1. Re:Moral travesty by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      I lean towards setting the clock half way to it's next leap and leaving it there.

      This shifting back and forth schtick is inane at best.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:Moral travesty by js3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It takes a big man to admit daylight savings time is idiotic but I am not a big man.

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
    3. Re:Moral travesty by ziggedy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Daylight savings time is a solution? I just thought it was a way that Benjamin Franklin could leave a legacy of pain (he came up with the idea i think?). For all Franklin has done for us, I will still kick him in the nuts when I see him in hell for this one!

      And now our intelegent government decides it will save us power if we extend it? How about solving the lack of power problem? How about funding alternative energy research?

      What does this mean for canada? does this mean for 4 weeks of the year America will be in a completely different time standard from mexico/canada? That just shows how retarded this is...

    4. Re:Moral travesty by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Their are two problems,
      1: For some weird reason we work 9-5 (or 8:30- 7:30 in the UK) and we don't adjust the time we work to fit in with how hot it is, what that lighting conditions are in the morning / at night etc... Daylight savings is like mass psychosis so that everyone can still work 9-5.

      2: (And more importantly) The idea of daylight saving it to make sure that the coldest hours of the day occur when we are asleep so that we don't have to turn on the heating.... This is occurs and extension of #1.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    5. Re:Moral travesty by @madeus · · Score: 1

      Seconded. I'd be happy to go with the compromise of shifting time by 30 min if people want to (which is bugger all difference and so an an excellent solution if people are stubborn), but the current situation of changing the clocks twice a year is just madness.

      Still, if this change does go through, it will blow the "it's too difficult to change now" argument out of the water.

      What worries me about this proposed change, is the prospect of people having to lose 2 hours sleep when the time comes to move the clocks forward.

    6. Re:Moral travesty by legirons · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Daylight savings time is an idiotic solution to a non-existent problem."

      And while every other aspect of the gregorian calendar can be described in just a few lines of code, the daylight-savings time requires a 450KB database just to find out which timezone you're in, with entries like "during the second world war, London experimented with double daylight-savings time..." (admittedly most of that 450K is comments)

    7. Re:Moral travesty by bpowell423 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you've never lived in Indiana. By 7am in the summertime, the sun is already high overhead, and it's setting by 8:30pm. The place I worked adjusted their office hours in the summer time to make up for the lack of daylight savings time. Daylight savings time is a briliant idea, IMHO. More daylight in the summer evening hours for mowing the grass, barbequeing, whatever, and yet it's daylight at a decent hour in the morning in the winter time. The only other solution is to shift your work schedule to get back those lost hours of daylight in the summertime, like the company I worked for in Indiana did.

    8. Re:Moral travesty by operagost · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that energy scarcity is a non-existent problem?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:Moral travesty by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Since you've invited me to disagree, I will. The "problem" it solves is people being slaves to the clock. If (non-farm) work schedules were also changed on a regular basis to the time the sun comes up, etc. there would be no need for DST. But then again, that would be a pain in the butt, having to remember "oh, its December 14, I start work at 9:47 this morning". DST is a hack, but it's the best one available at the moment.

    10. Re:Moral travesty by magarity · · Score: 1

      Daylight savings time is an idiotic solution to a non-existent problem
       
      People (in general) feel better when waking up near / just after sunrise and getting off work while there's still a few hours of daylight left. People who feel better are happier in general and more productive at work in particular. In case you hadn't noticed, the rotational wobble of the Earth causes the same arbitrary hour of the early morning / late afternoon to be out of sync with this pattern in the opposite half of the year. So it isn't a non-existant problem. Sure, it's a problem created by the fact that we aren't hunter-gatherers anymore and instead operate on schedules, but it's a problem.
       
      People also are even happier and more productive with a two to four hour nap in the afternoon. Where's that legislation is what I want to know.

    11. Re:Moral travesty by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which seems to be the problem?

      8:30 is a fine time for the sun to set. It sets by six in the winter (Virginia) and there doens't seem to be outcry.

      7am and the sun is "high overhead"? I'm still trying to figure out why that would be a problem. I work a relatively normal 8-5 day, and I have a sunrise simulator that I use - even in the summer - to get up at 6 so I have time to have breakfast and get my kid out of bed / dressed / fed / off to school. If it were light out at 5am, that'd be great.

      Of course, I have TiVo, so I don't have to worry about all that "but I can't watch Jay Leno and get up at 5am" shit. (No, I don't watch late night tv anyway). I don't play evening (insert sport here), where light is a problem. I can't get in 18 holes of golf after work regardless of the sunset time, so evening play is a moot point.

      Now that I come to think about it, if it got cooler an hour earlier in the evening, it would probably be much nicer. Young kids could spend more evenings chasing fireflys insead of having to go to bed while its still light out. The fireworks on the 4th could start at a reasonable time.

      Tell you what...I'm still looking for a down side. Even my wife would have one less day to be in a bitchy mood 'cause she lost an hour of sleep each spring. (Yes, she seems to treat the extra hour of sleep the fall change offers as a holiday akin to Christmas)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    12. Re:Moral travesty by mcmonkey · · Score: 1
      Daylight savings time is a briliant idea, IMHO. More daylight in the summer evening hours for mowing the grass, barbequeing, whatever, and yet it's daylight at a decent hour in the morning in the winter time.

      AAAAAAAEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!

      DST does NOT give you any more hours of daylight! Days are just as long, nights are just as long no matter what fiddling you do to your clock. The earth's rotation is the same, the sun's movement across the sky is the same, the phases of the moon are the same.

      We don't lose hours of daylight, we don't gain hours of daylight. What good is daylight at a decent hour of the morning if it's dark by 5 pm?

      DST is one of the most nonsensical ideas in human history. Thinking DST gives you more daylight is like saying tearing a piece of paper in half doubles the amount of paper you have. You have two pieces now, right?

    13. Re:Moral travesty by bpowell423 · · Score: 1

      Right on. I used to live in Indiana. Lack of daylight savings time is seriously one of the reasons I don't live there anymore. It was a major bummer to be driving to work at 7am with the sun already high in the sky.

    14. Re:Moral travesty by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only other solution is to shift your work schedule to get back those lost hours of daylight in the summertime, like the company I worked for in Indiana did.

      This is exactly how people should adapt to the increased sunlight hours during the summer - get up earlier and go to the gym, do gardening, whatever, during the copious hours before work if your work hours are static throughout the year. Alternately if you're an employer then adapt your hours (or even better adapt flexible hours for the majority of workplaces where it isn't detrimental to do so).

      The idea of changing the clock to force it on everyone is ludicrous, and it's imperfect anyways as there remains tremendous sunlight "waste" during the height of summer (in my area the sun rises just before 8am in the height of winter, and at 5am in the summer). In the past, when life was much more synchronous and people needed direct and immediate contact with others to a vastly greater degree, it was necessary for this mass coordination, but today we live largely asynchronous, queued and disconnected lives, and everyone clogging the streets at 8am and 5pm is insanity.

    15. Re:Moral travesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daylight savings time is a briliant idea, IMHO.

      Changing your office hours to better suit the weather/lighting conditions is a brilliant idea. Changing all the clocks in the area just so you can continue to work at the same time is an idiotic idea.

      Who cares if the clock says 8AM vs 9AM?

    16. Re:Moral travesty by ccevans · · Score: 1

      While this may be true, my computer, watch, and every other item with a clock shouldn't need to deal with this.

      Why is it harder to adjust working hours to fit the season? Not only would this be much easier from an implementation standpoint, but the changes in hours could be greater in more northern areas that could benefit from larger changes.

    17. Re:Moral travesty by bpowell423 · · Score: 1

      Okay, smarty. How about this then. Every business can shift their business hours in the summer so I can get home and mow the grass. I understand that we don't gain or loose daylight hours. Nobody is so stupid to think so. The hours of daylight before I go to work in the morning don't do me very much good. The hours of daylight in the evening are much more beneficial to me to allow me to get yard work done, play with the kids before dark, etc. By shifting our time in the summer, most people actually do gain an hour of daylight that they would otherwise be sleeping through in the morning.

    18. Re:Moral travesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree 100% with you.

      Besides:

      Energy, smenergy. Haul all the ^%#$@ SUVs off the road and really save some energy...

      What unbelievably stupid politicians we have...

    19. Re:Moral travesty by reedsr · · Score: 1

      that is correct the sun is up by 5:30 in the summer which is great for those of us that have to be at work by then. On the flip side what about winters in indiana? are you aware that it is nearly dark at 3:30pm in evansville? while the rest of the state is not dark until 4:30, how is that reasonable?

      --
      "Is Sausage bad for printers?"
    20. Re:Moral travesty by MajorDick · · Score: 1

      You must live down south / west I hate leaving a 5:00 PM only to have it Dark out.....

    21. Re:Moral travesty by Grax · · Score: 1

      I would post a response if I had the energy to do so.

    22. Re:Moral travesty by soupdevil · · Score: 1

      Mow your grass in the morning. Duh.

    23. Re:Moral travesty by dave_mcmillen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is exactly how people should adapt to the increased sunlight hours during the summer - get up earlier and go to the gym, do gardening, whatever . . . The idea of changing the clock to force it on everyone is ludicrous . . .

      Ah, but you've pointed out one of the problems: Go to the gym? But it's 5am, the gym isn't open yet. Neither is anything else, unless everyone gets together and agrees to start earlier. You can do this by asking every business to change schedules, or you can do it all at once by changing the clocks.

      Not so ludicrous, I think. No, for ludicrousness, wait until someone reasons that if extending it by another month is supposed to save energy, just think how much we'd save by extending it to the whole year! Wait for it.

    24. Re:Moral travesty by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      DST does NOT give you any more hours of daylight! Days are just as long, nights are just as long no matter what fiddling you do to your clock. The earth's rotation is the same, the sun's movement across the sky is the same, the phases of the moon are the same.

      I believe his point is simply that with a "static" work schedule, and a philosophy that the day doesn't begin until you leave for work, DST gives him more usable hours of sunlight at night (because during the DST months he is going to work at 8am - 4pm, even if the clock pretends that it's 9-5pm. As such, he has from 4 - 8:30PM real time, instead of 5PM - 8:30PM.

      The same benefit would be derived by leaving for work earlier, or making use of the pre-sunlight hours.

      As an aside, and this is about other posts - DST is during the summer. During the winter it is "normal hours". We have DST during the summer theoretically to take advantage of the very early sunrise.

    25. Re:Moral travesty by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Not so ludicrous, I think

      What you pointed out has to do with the synchronization of mankind, and it is a problem rather than a benefit. I don't want to go to the gym at exactly the same time as everyone else, nor do I want to drive on the highway or go to the restaurant. I'd like it people were spread out more.

    26. Re:Moral travesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your neighbours will love you.

    27. Re:Moral travesty by soupdevil · · Score: 1

      In my neighborhood, I hear at least three lawn mowers every morning by the time I get in the car at 8 to go to work. My neighbors also have laughing children, barking dogs, and many other things that make noise.

    28. Re:Moral travesty by gstovall · · Score: 1

      In most places that are decent to live, the dew is too heavy on the grass to mow in the morning.

    29. Re:Moral travesty by thjayoromanov · · Score: 1

      daylight savings time is an simple solution to a very concerning problem (blackouts)

    30. Re:Moral travesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your neighbors must LOVE you! "Hey soupdevil, what the F&#@ are you doing mowing at 4 am! I'm trying to sleep over here."

    31. Re:Moral travesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works well in the colder regions, but here in Phoenix Arizona, the only time to do anthing outside is during the coldest part of the day... In addition, you get discounts on your electric bill if you can postpone usage until after 7pm.

    32. Re:Moral travesty by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I would agree, but it seems most countries do something similar.

      If it didn't have any positive effect, you;d have thught that a few of these countries would abolish it.

    33. Re:Moral travesty by icroak · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you have a job. That doesn't work so well whenever you have to actually deal with anybody outside of your company. Meetings or conference calls and such are usually scheduled assuming you will be at work at a certain time and out to lunch at a certain time. If everybodys work schedule starts varying throughout the year based on when the sun is rising, it could cause some problems. I would think the majority of white collar jobs would be affected by this.

    34. Re:Moral travesty by Gondola · · Score: 1

      My neighborhood is quiet most of the time. There was one weekend where people were out mowing at 7am and I was like, what the fuck are these people thinking?

      It's idiotic (read: inconsiderate as hell) to mow your lawn when the vast majority of people are sleeping.

      Unfortunately, some people do not work day shifts and so must sleep during the day or evening, and I really feel for them. They either have to fully insulate their bedrooms for noise and light, or suffer a lot of rude awakenings.

      The answer, of course, is to build homes with bedrooms that are perfectly insulated from noise and light.

    35. Re:Moral travesty by T(V)oney · · Score: 1

      This isn't an opinion, it's bona-fide fact.

      The sun should be directly between sunrise and sunset at noon on any day of the year, no questions asked. This DST crap has got to go.

    36. Re:Moral travesty by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      "Daylight savings time is an idiotic solution to a non-existent problem."

      Shutup and listen, people: THIS POSTER IS CORRECT^! What the heck is going on with this thread?

      The numbers on your clock are invented by people!!! They do not control nature. The sun gets up when it wanted to, anyway. It still snows during snow season, anyway.

      Those of you with a job which actually *depends* on daylight (pilots? solar energy power plant workers? vampires?) are forgetting the 99% of the human race who don't. Prepare yourself for a shock: some people even work *graveyard shift*!

      If you want more daylight, get up earlier. Or stay up later. Declaring 6am an hour later also necessitates declaring 6pm an hour later, so no daylight is actually saved or wasted - you just cut an hour off at one end and tack it onto the other. For those of us who awake with the roosters (crowing at 4 am, the "most normal" time to awaken for most diurnal species throughout the animal kingdom. Get up some morning before light and go outside. Hear the birds? They know when morning is!), we never miss an hour's daylight no matter what season it is.

      Think of people who live at the arctic circle. They go months with almost no daylight at all! How do you think they cope? Think of people who work for any business that's open 24/7. Think of people who work underground or deep indoors. DS has no bearing for these people. And it's a complete illusion that it has any bearing on anybody. One a few of us cling to for convenience, but an illusion none the less.

      Maya definition #2: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/en try?id=m0163500 . You are now free to move about the country.

    37. Re:Moral travesty by smithmc · · Score: 1

        This is exactly how people should adapt to the increased sunlight hours during the summer - get up earlier and go to the gym, do gardening, whatever, during the copious hours before work if your work hours are static throughout the year.

      Uh, huh. I take it you're a morning person?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    38. Re:Moral travesty by wasted+time · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People also are even happier and more productive with a two to four hour nap in the afternoon. Where's that legislation is what I want to know.

      Heh. My last employer offered flexible scheduling. We could work a 8-hour day anywhere between the hours of 6am and 7pm, with our supervisors prior approval. One of my coworkers decided this was a great idea and submitted a request to change his schedule to 7-7. When our boss ponted out that he was requesting a 12 workday, the guy replied with a dead serious, "yeah, I know. I plan to take a 3 hour nap after lunch everyday." Come to find out, he was also a DJ for a AM station and worked 11pm-3am several nights a week.

      I already worked a 10-11 hour day, so I should have just closed the door and napped anyway.

      --
      The Stone Age did not end because humans ran out of stones. - William McDonough
    39. Re:Moral travesty by Spellbinder · · Score: 1

      so what?
      the gym has the same 8 hours open as you work
      then you are quite fucked up
      or should the gym open for a longer time?
      maybe 24/7?
      then the poor guy at the gym would have to work 24/7 so that everyone can come when he likes to?
      maybe not... but are you willing to pay 3 times as much so they can work in shifts??
      syncronisation of mankind is very important
      how will you have social contact when everybody works as he likes
      there will be no after work beer with most of your mates because they work diffrent schedules, no time with your girlfriend except you are lucky enough to be able to schedule your working day
      about everything would fall appart
      but if you like to be a social hermit you can do shift-work
      the main use of DST is to give you more time with sunlight in one piece
      where i live i get about 6 hours of daylight after work in the summer and about 4 hours in the morning

      --


      stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
    40. Re:Moral travesty by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      'the only time to do anthing outside is during the coldest part of the day', Isn't it very dark then? And you'll get far more even days the closer to the equator you get so daylight saving makes no sense at all.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    41. Re:Moral travesty by Ghost-in-the-shell · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse your sleeping/waking schedule with others.
      Just because you don't get up at 7am on the weekends does not mean others don't. In fact the more productive in society get up earlier and take full advantage of the sunlight hours by getting and starting work with the sun and working till it goes down if not longer.

      Also in most places it is perfectly acceptable to make noice at that hour. It's usually the 11pm till 7am time frame you can't make noise that would disturbe others. But then again that's not a blanket rule either.

      --
      -Ghost
    42. Re:Moral travesty by Hawke666 · · Score: 1

      You can't have that everywhere without smaller time zones. Other than that, I agree.

    43. Re:Moral travesty by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Ummm...daylight savings time is only in effect during the summer. That '7am' was really 6am, and that '8:30pm' was really 7:30. Daylight savings time doesn't affect winter at all, since it's not in effect.

      And of course the sane solution is to just adjust working hours if needed.

    44. Re:Moral travesty by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Doh! Forgot that Indiana is one of the few places sane enough to not have DST, and so completely misread your post. I still disagree, of course--I see nothing wrong with the sun rising earlier and setting later--that's what summer's all about.

      Of course, we'd all be happier if we kept solar hours anyway: 12 hours of daylight; 12 of night; work eight hours out of the day. Yes, this would mean short winter work days and long summer work days. I could deal.

    45. Re:Moral travesty by defaria · · Score: 1
    46. Re:Moral travesty by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      the gym has the same 8 hours open as you work
      then you are quite fucked up
      or should the gym open for a longer time?
      maybe 24/7?


      Sentences and paragraphs. Look into them.

      In any case, what a load of nonsense - my grocery store is open 24 hours. My gym is open from 6am to 11pm, every day (OMG!), covering virtually any personal schedule. My dentest has a changing schedule so he can fit you in whether you want 9am or 7pm, though you might have to wait a week. Virtually everyone has around the clock phone support, and of course the internet never sleeps. The 1950s called, and they want your tired hyperbole back.

    47. Re:Moral travesty by Zulfi · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. But, it looks like the president is there to help you. If he extends Daylight savings for another 4 months, that's it! We can be done away with Daylight savings! It is just that we'd all be living in a different time zone.

    48. Re:Moral travesty by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Shutup and listen

      Screw you.

      I think timezones should be abolished too.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    49. Re:Moral travesty by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Where do YOU live? In my area, the grocery stores close after dark. So do the gyms that I know of. The dentist keeps strict "bankers hours", though I suppose he will finish up if his appointments last beyond 5PM. Most phone support shuts down BEFORE anyone else does (I've gotten the answering machine at 3:30PM). I'll grant you that the internet never sleeps, but everyone else sure does!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    50. Re:Moral travesty by millwall · · Score: 1

      And while every other aspect of the gregorian calendar can be described in just a few lines of code

      Might be true, there are other quite tricky bits in the calendar as well. Although not quite part of the original gregorian calendar, try calculating the ISO week number.

      Example: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/weekcalc.htm

    51. Re:Moral travesty by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Bravo to that company! I want to wake up at (SUNRISE - 30 min), leave for work at (SUNRISE), work until (SUNRISE + 9 hrs), and the rest of the day is mine, whether light in the summer or dark in the winter.

      I worked from 6:30-3:30 one winter, and I really enjoyed the afternoon sunshine. There's nothing more depressing that driving home in the dark.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    52. Re:Moral travesty by legirons · · Score: 1

      "try calculating the ISO week number"

      Isn't that just floor(((day of year) - 3) / 7)?

      At least, I'm pretty sure it's a mathematical formula, which is better than (if in arizona and not in towns x, y, or z, and after 1933 and not between 1977 and 1980, and if between 1am on the third sunday after easter and before 11pm on the last sunday in October if that doesn't fall on the 31st, then...) which is what the timezone calculation ends up like

  6. DVD firmware upgrade by anandpur · · Score: 1

    Is'nt this the right time to flash DVD player with OSS firmware?

  7. Awful idea. by hoborocks · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is so short-sighted it's not even funny. Coming into effect in 2007, as the article states...does anyone actually think that that's enough time to update everything that depends on human time?

    I'm all in favor of changing things around, sure...but in under a year? More like 8 months? That's not nearly enough time to switch our major infrastructure over to use the new daylight time.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Awful idea. by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Most things nowadays are set to GMT; the only thing that DST affects is what is displayed to the end-user.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Awful idea. by hoborocks · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but how does this matter? Affecting end users will affect the people that run the systems, which will affect how the systems are run...

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Awful idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      "I use my mod points to rank down people who point out dupes."

      Good for you. We all appreciate your proactive stance for mediocrity.

    4. Re:Awful idea. by tgd · · Score: 1

      You do realize daylight savings time changes on different days in every country? That parts of the US don't even have it?

      Hardware and software already deal with the problem. It'll be a minor patch to system libraries to solve the problem for software. It already has to ask "what day is it, and where are you" to figure out when and if to apply DST changes.

      This is one more if statement when your locale is in the US.

      And most hardware doesn't really understand DST. I've never seen a VCR that did. Why would someone sell a VCR that can't be sold anywhere but the US?

    5. Re:Awful idea. by Peyna · · Score: 1

      It matters because it means that it is not all doom and gloom just because we'll be looking at a clock that is an hour off for a few months until someone updates the system.

      DST has been changed in the past several times and the world didn't explode then.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:Awful idea. by makomk · · Score: 1

      Why would someone sell a VCR that can't be sold anywhere but the US?

      Because you stubbornly use NTSC as a video standard, when pretty much everyone else in the world uses PAL.

    7. Re:Awful idea. by VolciMaster · · Score: 1
      Coming into effect in 2007, as the article states...does anyone actually think that that's enough time to update everything that depends on human time? I'm all in favor of changing things around, sure...but in under a year? More like 8 months?

      Ummmm... 2007 is over a year away, more than 16 months, even. So, 8 months might be a little quick, but 16 (plus the couple months ni the beginning of the new year, and the reamining weeks of August this year) is quick, but doable, at least for 'simply' updated things like network time servers.

    8. Re:Awful idea. by notnAP · · Score: 1
      [The U.S.] stubbornly use[s] NTSC as a video standard

      And for those who do not know, NTSC stands for Never Twice the Same Color.

    9. Re:Awful idea. by Buran · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is no real "one standard used in one place and nowhere else" except SECAM.

      NTSC is used in the US, Canada, Mexico, and Japan. France uses SECAM. You can actually buy a "world VCR" that can record or play back any of these standards. And the one I've got right here has M-PAL and N-PAL selections as well.

      You can also buy televisions that accept any signal and many DVD players also have a menu item that lets you select whether you want to use NTSC or PAL.

      My digital camera does this in case I visit a country that uses PAL and my host doesn't have an auto-switching television for showing photo slide shows on. (I've never used the slideshow feature but I've seen others use it in a pinch).

    10. Re:Awful idea. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yup, we should switch to PAL, whose superiority is marginal at best, instead of going to Digital HDTV in a few years (which most Slashdotters oppose with disturbingly Luddite ferocity-- probably because it involves the FCC).

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:Awful idea. by Detritus · · Score: 1

      NTSC was in operation for over a decade before PAL was introduced. Fscking idiots.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    12. Re:Awful idea. by makomk · · Score: 1

      NTSC was in operation for over a decade before PAL was introduced. Fscking idiots.

      Interesting. Of course, the history of TV standards in the UK is a bit screwy anyway - I think we might have used Baird mechanical encoding experimentally for a brief period.

    13. Re:Awful idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would someone sell a DVD player that only works with DVDs with one region code?

    14. Re:Awful idea. by AJWM · · Score: 5, Funny

      Coming into effect in 2007 ... but in under a year?

      Is it 2006 where you are? Can you send me some stock quotes?

      --
      -- Alastair
    15. Re:Awful idea. by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Coming into effect in 2007, as the article states...does anyone actually think that that's enough time to update everything that depends on human time?

      Quiet you! Do you want to relive the late 90's economic boom for us in the tech sector or not! I've already got my flyers for the "2007 Leap Second End of Computers Event unless you pay me $50 to look at your BIOS and download patches you could have done yourself" sale.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    16. Re:Awful idea. by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Didn't you put your calendar forward for Celestial Saving Time?

    17. Re:Awful idea. by aaza · · Score: 1
      NTSC: Never Twice the Same Colo(u)r
      PAL: Picture Always Lousy
      SECAM: System Even Crappier than American Method

      Or, more accurately:
      National Television Standard (Council? I can't remember the last word - it's been far too long)
      Phase Alternating Line
      I don't know what secam really stands for (if anything)

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
      In practice, however, there is.
    18. Re:Awful idea. by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, some games also offer the option of PAL or NTSC output, on the PS2 at least. (Though I always thought consoles were limited in what standard they output).
      And most capture cards and video outputs on computers support many standards too.

  8. Raise your hand! by Zediker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who else thinks this is a phenominally stupid idea! If anything we should just get rid of Daylight savings, it costs us tons of money each year to be out of sync with the rest of the world.

    --
    I love to slaughter the english language.
    1. Re:Raise your hand! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only stupid idea is the thought that the US is the only country that observes DST.

    2. Re:Raise your hand! by Zediker · · Score: 0

      That assumption of my statement is left up to the reader. I did not say that the US was the only country that observed DST.

      --
      I love to slaughter the english language.
    3. Re:Raise your hand! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Who else thinks this is a phenominally stupid idea! If anything we should just get rid of Daylight savings, it costs us tons of money each year to be out of sync with the rest of the world.

      Yes, but just think of all the candles we are saving!

  9. Does Bush's watch... by Skiron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...have Mickey and Minnie mouse as hands? I mean, it could sway the decision here.

  10. Woo, who cares? by garcia · · Score: 1

    Blah. You mean that people might have to learn to use the most basic features of the devices they own? Gosh, golly, gee, no!

    If anything, the tech sector will love it... People that are *so* annoyed by having to manually change their times *twice* for each switchover will be happy to upgrade to a newer unit that doesn't cause such a horrible thing to occur.

    The rest of us will either do the difficult subtraction/addition in our heads until the device fixees itself three weeks later or will just do it ourselves.

    1. Re:Woo, who cares? by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      Shhh! You're giving away the real reason behind the push for DST changes.

      The Country was not supposed to know that fact.

      Ooooooooh! I'm telling the President. You'll be in trouble, now.

  11. Time sensitive data? by MrJynxx · · Score: 1

    This is going to be a nightmare for transmissions between the US and Canada if Canada does not follow. Everything will have to change to accomadate this timezone change.. Probaly going to waste more resources dealing with this.. SHIZA!! MrJynx

  12. Artifact? by markmcb · · Score: 2, Funny

    What is this "VCR" you speak of?

    --
    Mark A. McBride -- OmniNerd.com
  13. BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no! I can't tape the "Mr. Belvedere" marathon! Western civilization as we know it will end!

    1. Re:BFD by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Oh no, I can't buy anthing at amazon.com because everytime I try to login it tells me my session has already expired for being inactive for 60 minutes. BFD indeed.

    2. Re:BFD by EEBaum · · Score: 1

      Well, I have my fallout shelter ready.

      --
      -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
    3. Re:BFD by lurch_ss · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you logged in 60 minutes from now.

  14. demand by WhiZa · · Score: 1

    I predict an increase in demand for VCR chronometer repair

  15. Time in the Day = Save Energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time in the Day = Save Energy?

    Would somebody like to explain this to me?

    Are we saving a negligible ammount of energy here?

    1. Re:Time in the Day = Save Energy? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Informative

      in the 1700's Ben Franklin rightly surmized(sp?) that by increasing the use of daylight during the summer, less candles had to be made, transported, and used thus there was a fairly good bit of savings.

      In early 1900s, if more daylight led to less electric light use (a sizeable portion of the electric bill) then there would be significant savings.

      In modern times however, it is but a blip on the monthly electric bill, with AC units, refrigerators, freezers, TVs, etc all demanding almost constant power draw. Lights simply aren't a huge area of savings anymore.

      Even more so this could actually INCREASE our electric costs: I have a programmable thermostat, that I set to be warmer in the summer when I'm not home, then turn on so it's cool when I return from work. Now I'm home more hours during the hottest part of the day which in turn uses more power for my AC unit which is wildly more expensive to run than a few lightbulbs.


      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:Time in the Day = Save Energy? by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      You mean that this is just a plot by teh evil corporation overloads?
      That this bill introduced by the BUSH administration in the end MIGHT be saving the corporations more than the average consumer? NO WAY!

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
  16. Look on the bright side by drwiii · · Score: 5, Funny

    You'll have another hour to fix it.

    1. Re:Look on the bright side by varmittang · · Score: 1

      Fix what? Its called "User Error", and I can't fix that until I get a better user.

      --
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      12345
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    2. Re:Look on the bright side by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Clearly the only solution is the systematic termination of all users.

  17. Thank goodness... by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

    I'm so glad the current admininstration has decided on patriarchy. We wouldn't want to have input on our government.
    Just so you know I'm not just a complainer, I did send a letter to my congress people. They sent me back form letters telling me that they agreed that becoming less dependent on foreign oil was important and were glad I supported their position. It's fun having non-representative democracy.

  18. Please just drop it. by Phs2501 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hopefully this will cause more states to take the good example of Arizona and just do away with the daylight savings sillyness altogether.

    1. Re:Please just drop it. by cruff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. It seems to me that no additional energy will be saved by this stupidity, it will just shift the period in the day when it is used.

    2. Re:Please just drop it. by the+phantom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      May I also add that extending Daylight Saving Time even farther into the fall is a bad idea(tm). I work at an elementary school. The kids tend to show up between 8:30 and 9:00 am. Understandard time in November, the sun has been up for maybe 40 minutes by the time they get here. Extending Daylight Saving Time even further means that they will be walking to school in the dark, which just seems like bad policy to me. Furthermore, I bike to work at about 7:00. I really don't like being on the road when it is very dark, which it can be at 7:00. It will be even worse with more DST.

      In short, I think this is a bad idea. I think DST is a bad idea in general, and I wish that more states would do what Arizona has done (but not the Navajo Nation), and dispense with DST altogether.

    3. Re:Please just drop it. by interiot · · Score: 1

      Noooo. We JUST convinced Indiana to stop being the armpit of the midwest by changing to a more normal timezone. Right-thinking people don't use cows as an argument for setting national relations policy!

    4. Re:Please just drop it. by Phs2501 · · Score: 1

      Cows? I just use the strangely odd notion that noon should be when the sun is over the center of the time zone. :-)

    5. Re:Please just drop it. by telecsan · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have apparently never seen the typical electric load in the evenings for a large electric utility. Trust me, you can tell the difference between the day before daylight saving time (starts/ends) and the day after. There is a benefit. Personally, I don't think it's worth the hassle, but that's just me being selfish.

    6. Re:Please just drop it. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The general idea was that less energy would be used because people would do more stuff during daylight hours and wouldn't run the lights as much at night. In that respect, it does save energy.

      Of course, it's still absurd because we could just schedule things at different times (i.e. work from 8AM to 4PM in the summer instead of redefining 9AM to be an hour earlier). Daylight Savings Time is just a pointless psychological trick, just like pricing things at $9.99 instead of $10.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Please just drop it. by Steve525 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that extending DST further in fall is bad idea. The problem is DST is very assymetric. The winter solstice is Dec. 21. If DST was actually about daylight, it should be close to symmetric around this date. However, we fall back only 2 months before this, and spring ahead 4 months after this. So, the fall transition happens too late, and the spring transition could stand to happen sooner.

    8. Re:Please just drop it. by Thrakkerzog · · Score: 1

      What does it look like in the morning when we fall back? Don't we have the same lights on in the morning that we would have on at night? I guess I don't turn the TV on in the morning, but I would have to guess that the benifit would be marginal at best.

      I've been replacing lights that we tend to keep on for an extended period of time with compact fluorescent bulbs as the incandescent ones burn out. I have to imagine that if Americans replaced half of their incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents the margin would be much greater.

      It can be hard to justify a the cost of a $3.00 spiral to a $0.50 incandescent bulb, though. Mine have been going strong for 2 years now, rather than replacing them every 6 months or so.

    9. Re:Please just drop it. by Peyna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      May I also add that extending Daylight Saving Time even farther into the fall is a bad idea(tm). I work at an elementary school. The kids tend to show up between 8:30 and 9:00 am. Understandard time in November, the sun has been up for maybe 40 minutes by the time they get here. Extending Daylight Saving Time even further means that they will be walking to school in the dark, which just seems like bad policy to me. Furthermore, I bike to work at about 7:00. I really don't like being on the road when it is very dark, which it can be at 7:00. It will be even worse with more DST.

      Here in Dayton, Ohio, we're almost as far west as you can get in EDT (not including Michigan and half Kentucky.

      The last school day that will be during DST in 2006 will be November 17th. Twilight will begin at 7:55 am, the sun will rise at 8:24 am, noon will be at 1:22 pm, and the sun will set at 5:20 pm.

      Without DST, the same day would be sun rise at 7:24 am, noon at 12:22 pm, sunset at 4:20 pm.

      When the kids go back to school on January 4th, without DST, the sun will rise at 7:58 am, noon at 12:42 pm, sunset at 5:25 pm.

      I don't see it being that much of a difference. And actually, without DST, with the sun setting at 4:20 pm, you probably have some kids going home in the dark. Especially if they're in after school activities (something which I'm sure being a fan of doing things "for the children" you will support).

      So they either go to school in the dark in the morning, or they come home in the dark at night.

      --
      What?
    10. Re:Please just drop it. by sholden · · Score: 2, Interesting


      It can be hard to justify a the cost of a $3.00 spiral to a $0.50 incandescent bulb, though. Mine have been going strong for 2 years now, rather than replacing them every 6 months or so.


      Only another year and you'll break even...

      Ignoring the energy costs of course :)

    11. Re:Please just drop it. by Phantom+Zmoove · · Score: 1

      I live in Indiana, one of the states that used to ignore the insanity. No longer, next year they are forcing us to switch to DST. So it would appear that the country is going in the other diection. (sigh) It was a nice ride while it lasted.

    12. Re:Please just drop it. by Enry · · Score: 1

      I can get 'em for $.99 up to 90 watt equivalent.

      Many power companies will get you a coupon for the compact fluorescent bulbs. Bought a torchiere last year for $5 with CF bulb.

    13. Re:Please just drop it. by TheDormouse · · Score: 1

      As an Arizona resident who prefers to wake up at a reasonable hour (typically no earlier than 7am), let me tell you that it totally sucks having the sun rise at 5am and set by 7:30pm every day in the summer.

    14. Re:Please just drop it. by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      So they either go to school in the dark in the morning, or they come home in the dark at night.

      There is clear evidence that going to school in the dark is far safer than coming home. Everyone is more alert and usually in more of a hurry, so less likely to wander into the road.

    15. Re:Please just drop it. by TheDormouse · · Score: 1
      Which is easier to remember:
      1. "Home Depot is open from 8am-9pm," or
      2. "Home Depot is open 8am-9pm from November until April and 7am-8pm from May until November"?

      Switching the schedule is just as arbitrary as switching the clock.

    16. Re:Please just drop it. by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Everyone is more alert and usually in more of a hurry, so less likely to wander into the road.

      Maybe that's why the town of Oakwood, OH installed a bunch of rails on the sidewalks around town. It's one of the goofiest looking things I've ever seen, but I guess it might keep those children from sleep walking into the street.

      --
      What?
    17. Re:Please just drop it. by jaeson · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, not all of Arizona follows this policy. The Navajo Indians in Arizona still observe DST on their reservation.

    18. Re:Please just drop it. by Paladine97 · · Score: 1

      5 AM is a tad extreme I have to agree. But on the really long days like June 21st, the sun stays out until 8!

      The part I REALLY hate is the sun going down at 5-5:30 in the Winter. Now that is depressing.

    19. Re:Please just drop it. by ndansmith · · Score: 1
      Arizona, Indiana, and Hawaii do not have DST. The reason they do not cannot be chalked up to DST being "silly" in their opinions.

      First of all, Hawaii is farther south than any other U.S. state (inf fact, it is in the tropics). This means that there is less variation in the amount of daylight throughout the year, and therefore DST would have less of an effect on energy consumption.

      In the cases of Arizona and Indiana, both are on the far east of their timezones. In the case of Indiana, the sun already goes down much later than in New York city, but the two are in the same time zone. To implement DST in these states would make the sun be up much later than would be useful for DST (that is, after many people head to bed).

      So each of these three states has decided not to use DST not only because it fouls up their VCRs, but for some practical reasons as well.

    20. Re:Please just drop it. by Thrakkerzog · · Score: 1

      They had them for $10.00 / 7 pack at home depot 40/60 equivalent, commercial electric (house) brand. They stopped carrying them, and now only offer two packs for $7.00.

      Where are you finding these 90 watt equiv for $0.99? I don't think my electric company offers any coupons, but I should call and ask.

    21. Re:Please just drop it. by RedBear · · Score: 1

      The kids tend to show up between 8:30 and 9:00 am. Understandard time in November, the sun has been up for maybe 40 minutes by the time they get here. Extending Daylight Saving Time even further means that they will be walking to school in the dark, which just seems like bad policy to me. Furthermore, I bike to work at about 7:00. I really don't like being on the road when it is very dark, which it can be at 7:00. It will be even worse with more DST.


      Just be glad you don't live further away from the equator. Up here in Alaska we go to school and leave school in the dark for about a third of the year. You would have to bike to work at 9:30 and leave by 3:30 during the darkest parts of the year. Of course it's even worse when you get up to and beyond the Arctic Circle. I also think more DST is a bad idea, but you don't have that much to complain about.

    22. Re:Please just drop it. by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 2, Funny
      You would have to bike to work at 9:30 and leave by 3:30


      Works for me! Let's throw in a nice long three-martini lunch for good measure.
    23. Re:Please just drop it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indiana just went from an Arizona-style system where most of the
      state stayed on Eastern Standard Time year-round, to adopt
      DST beginning in 2006. This was pushed by the Republican
      governor who claimed a benefit to business, and still passed
      only narrowly despite complete Republican control of
      the state government.

      The funny part is that the Gov didn't specify whether the state
      would follow Eastern or Central time once DST started. The
      politics over that are just starting (not divided along traditional
      party lines, but over the eastern versus western parts of
      the state...)

      I guess the moral is, any messing with time is an intensely
      political issue.

    24. Re:Please just drop it. by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      Indeed... I lived in Siberia for a semester in High School. The sun rose at about 10:00 am, and set at about 1:00 pm. And this was a month after the solstice. I feel your pain, and am glad to be away from that aspect of living in Russia.

    25. Re:Please just drop it. by syousef · · Score: 1

      Arggghhhh!

      You'd get the same benefit leaving the @#$@ing clock alone and changing business hours.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    26. Re:Please just drop it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you aparently have never been to Phoenix...Since you haven't already realized it, the biggest use of power in Phoenix is not lights, its your AC. So daylight savings just makes it so its hotter for longer. Many people in Phoenix have automatic thermostats that allow the temperature of their homes to raise during the day while they are away.

    27. Re:Please just drop it. by nten · · Score: 1

      Better yet, lets just get rid of timezones. Everyone switch to GMT. If a company wants to be environmentally friendly they tell you to come in at a time that causes you to use less electricity. But to be honest I don't think my lighting uses that much electricity compared to keeping my apartment at 60F when its 100F outisde.

      --
      refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    28. Re:Please just drop it. by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      "Understandard"

      Wow. You quoted what Bush said when someone asked if he knew what Daylight Savings Time was.

      "I understandard it real good."

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    29. Re:Please just drop it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen the numbers. So have thousands of other people. They aren't that impressive. In fact, no one can tell me conclusively that I'm saving any power at all.

    30. Re:Please just drop it. by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Clearly the only solution is the systematic termination of all students.

    31. Re:Please just drop it. by danila · · Score: 1

      Apparently, most countries in the world, most governments and most power companies are just parts of a huge conspiracy intended to make you feel groggy for a few days every year... or there are actually significant benefits. Which one is more likely?

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    32. Re:Please just drop it. by telecsan · · Score: 1

      What does it look like in the morning when we fall back? Don't we have the same lights on in the morning that we would have on at night?

      There are 2 issues with this:
      1) In the morning, most people only wake up early enough to get to work. This still entails about the same amount of lighting , regardless of sunlight (bathroom, closet, etc.) Even in the dark hours, most morning lighting is subdued to prevent waking of other individuals. So, in any case, the effect is much less than in the evenings.

      2) It's also a case of economic dispatch of power plants. In the morning, most people are getting up at a non-peak power time. Many plants are operating at their minimum capacity, just to stay on. Many companies have to find creative uses for night-time power (11PM-7AM ish) or shut plants down overnight, which is not a very nice alternative. Therefore, increased load at 6-7 AM is a relative non-issue since the power is nominally being generated anyway.

    33. Re:Please just drop it. by telecsan · · Score: 1

      True, but think of the nightmare trying to implement that on a wide scale.

      Business A follows gov't regulation
      Business B decides to go 1/2 way and stay all year round.
      Business C changes 1 week later than everyone else.
      Business D ignores it altogether.
      Business E decides to change 2 hours instead of 1.

      Ok, now you not only didn't get the intended savings, but you can't figure out whether Best Buy is open until 8, 9, 10, or 11.

      Plus, what if your work changes but your babysitter refuses/cannot? What would you do for that extra hour?

      Now THAT gives me a headache. Changing the clocks is the way of mandating the standard.

    34. Re:Please just drop it. by Fiddy · · Score: 1

      Here's an even worse example of Daylight Saving Time. After many years of not being on Daylight Saving Time, Indiana's government decided that it would be best if we observed DST so that businesses in other states don't get confused and refuse to do business in this state (seriously that's the primary point the backers pressed). And guess which time zone Indiana is in? Eastern. There's supposed to be discussions to move some counties to Central, but the same companies that pressed for DST in the first place are pressing to stay in Eastern so that they can do business more easily with New York City (even though Chicago is much, much closer).

    35. Re:Please just drop it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Saskatchewan. Also no daylight savings time. Also CST. Basically it's Arizona North as far as the clock is concerned. Every spring and every fall when everybody else is changing their clocks, the "time debate" comes up. Good politicians know not to get in the way of this, since they'll be destroyed by one opinion or the other.

      So after years and years of having to explain to other people why their calculations are wrong, it's somewhat satisfying to see the whole situation go to heck from the Bush Administration. Let me just have a moment... okay thank you.

      For my own opinion, having grown up in this situation, I've never seen anything wrong with keeping the time the same. What's wrong? It's too dark for school in the winter? Why not open school an hour later. Everybody can do this without actually changing the times on their clock you know! Certainly differences can happen on the local level to accomidate the level of light. And you know what? It's a lot easier to remember than realizing you're late for work because you forgot to adjust in the spring.

    36. Re:Please just drop it. by syousef · · Score: 1

      You can implement ANYTHING badly.

      Currently businesses follow standard business hours due to both regulation and standing convention. You have to change the hours in a way that is universally accepted. That's the key word here: Universally. Sell people on the benefits of not having this confusion and they'll be happy to go to work from 8am-4:30pm in the Summer and 9am-5:30pm in winter.

      Imagine what a mess daylight savings would be if only some people decided they'd change their clocks.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    37. Re:Please just drop it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If USA introduces DST for the whole year, you will actually generate a saving of about 365%, which means electricity will flow back to the powerplants ;)

      http://tf.nist.gov/general/daylightsavingtime.html

      Studies done by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.

    38. Re:Please just drop it. by telecsan · · Score: 1

      I lived in Indiana for 4 years, I know the mess.

    39. Re:Please just drop it. by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      Gah! Get it off!

      Under standard... damn. I am human, I do make typographical errors. So much for that theory. ^_^

  19. I Understand This! by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 1

    Bush hopes to save an enormous amount of energy by doing this! This measure will help his old buddies in the Texas penal system to cut costs on electricity used during executions now that they wont have to run the lights at the same time the chair is put in extra crispy mode!

    --
    News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
    1. Re:I Understand This! by josecanuc · · Score: 1

      I suppose it doesn't matter, but Texas uses lethal injection for this.

    2. Re:I Understand This! by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 1

      I never knew that Texas didn't use the chair. I just did some research and found that the only "Chair" states are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia so thanks for the correction. Scary thing is that 345 people were executed in Texas from Lethal Injection from 1982 - 2005 and Bush was Governor for 152 or those. And the total number of Lethal Injections in the country from 1976 to Present was 809. Damn Texas kills a lot of prisoners!

      --
      News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
    3. Re:I Understand This! by equiraptor · · Score: 1

      I believe Texas was the first state to change to lethal injection, as well, though I don't have a source to cite on that...

    4. Re:I Understand This! by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Makes sense to me... Taxpayers don't have to cover the costs of food, clothing, guards salaries or cable TV for a dead prisoner. Sounds to me like those Texans (and Bush) are being wise stuards of the taxpayers' money.

  20. uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't americans just drive cars that get 9 miles to the gallon instead of 8. Surely that would have as much effect as fucking around with clocks and when the hour changes.

  21. first things first... by enrico_suave · · Score: 1

    patch the TiVo and PC PVR...

    My microwave can be an hour off for eternity, but if I miss that INXS/hulk hogan/tommy lee reality show, heads are gonna roll!

    e.

    --
    Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
    1. Re:first things first... by Buran · · Score: 1

      I know you're kidding, given the shows you list. However, this was one of the first things I thought of -- and TiVos automatically fetch their time setting from a central server. Since a TiVo has to be set up to fetch info from that server in order to work (program guides and the like), the server will just start sending corrected time info when the time comes. Or the TiVo itself will get a software patch that will change the behavior of the clock.

      In fact, TiVo is requesting beta testers for an open beta of some new software that is coming in a few weeks (that's nothing that's covered by any NDAs and it's right in their own forums) and I would not be surprised if one of the things they add in the update is a change in the DST code that is triggered to start working when the year rolls over to whatever year the changes take effect in.

    2. Re:first things first... by Malc · · Score: 1

      Don't Tivos use NTP?

    3. Re:first things first... by Buran · · Score: 1

      They may; I'm not sure. It would not surprise me, though, since they're embedded Linux devices. So almost certainly someone will issue a patch for ntp and TiVo will roll it into an update, if they do indeed use that method.

  22. Not just gadgets by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

    Any database which is national or inter-national in scope (and is set up properly), stores its dates/times in GMT, then converts to the user's time zone.

    All of these also need to be changed.

    I smell $$ :-)

    --

    - - - - - - - - - - -
    I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    1. Re:Not just gadgets by PeteDotNu · · Score: 1

      What are the odds that Windows XP and older versions won't support the new standard?

      "You want the correct time? You'll need to upgrade to Vista."

      --
      My other processor is big-endian.
    2. Re:Not just gadgets by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1
      "You want the correct time? You'll need to upgrade to Vista."

      Yeah, just what I need more
      Viruses
      Infections
      Spyware
      Trojans and
      Adware

  23. Of all the things in the Energy Bill by bgfay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems that this is the one that people are concentrating on. Nutty stuff, really. I keep thinking about how we're killing the environment, that we can't get our President to even mention the word conservation, that we are making little to no progress toward using alternative energy sources, and on and on. But the fact that my cell phone might get confused by the new Daylight Savings Time is what we're hearing about not just on /. but on all sorts of other media outlets.

    Alright, so I'm going off on this. I understand that /. is news for nerds and tech oriented. This story fits that. I'm not saying that this story doesn't belong on /. (Got that?)

    What I'm trying to say is that somehow this is the BIG idea in the energy bill as it is being reported and it doesn't deserve that status.

    The Energy bill is a mess the likes of which haven't been seen since the Patriot Act. That's where the focus needs to be.

    Oh well.

    --
    Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
    1. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by M-G · · Score: 1

      Well, the conspiracy theorist in me says that the DST changes were made to in order to garner the headlines, and help hide the fact that the 'energy bill' does little besides give profitable oil companies extra tax credits.

    2. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      If one regularly sported a tinfoil hat (I don't, but I have to say they are starting to look attractive...), you might think that this is EXACTLY what the president wanted.

      Blow a stupid little thing out of proportion (in the media and general public) that really has no impact except to make people *manually set a clock back or forward* (Much like how I currently do with our "real" clocks in the house) to distract people from looking at the POS legislation that's getting passed under their noses.

      - Roach

    3. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by goldspider · · Score: 1

      The energy bill includes tax incentives for buying energy-efficient devices and appliances, as well as for fuel-efficient vehicles.

      Oh that devious, evil George Dubbya Bu$hitler! What will he think of next?

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    4. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Energy bill is a mess the likes of which haven't been seen since the Patriot Act. That's where the focus needs to be.

      People only care about the here and now (I'm one of them although I don't care about how this might screw up my computer automatically correcting for CDT and CST).

      Global Warming is something that cooks and liberals care about and it doesn't affect anyone in the next two days so it doesn't matter. What's on TV is what matters to people right now.

      As long as the media and the Government can divert people's attention with stupid bullshit like their mobile phones and VCRs (remember anything that interferes with Survivor, The Bachelor/ette, and/or any other stupid reality TV show is far more important than anything else).

    5. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      It's not a conspiracy theory if that is really what is happening.

    6. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      ...that we can't get our President to even mention the word conservation...

      Of course, others of us are thankful we don't have a President who manipulates the populace with "feel good" solution such as "conservation" that actually do nothing about the real problems. Unfortunately, there are too many people who just want leaders to "say the right things" to make them think they "care until they bleed." *cough*Clinton*cough*

      You seem to think that if only a leader would wave his magic arm, alternative energy sources would magically appear, solving all our oil problems. It will NEVER work that way. If some EcoBleeder wants alternative energy to work, then EcoBleeder should invent something that's cheaper than oil. Presto! Alternative energy is in.

      Let's not even get into how wasteful recycling is from an energy standpoint. Hey, as long as you feel good about putting newspaper into the recycle bin, who cares that it produces more pollution to turn it back into quality paper than it would to plant a tree and harvest it? It's all about feeling good, isn't it?

      Bah.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    7. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we can't get our President to even mention the word conservation

      Could be that he can't pronounce it...

    8. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that anyone can make the typical american not drivethe biggest gas swilling american dream SUV, consume less, conserv by turning the heating thermostat down and the AC up so they are slightly less comfortable, to use reuseable packaging, and not sit down to watch the nightly news on their 350 watt 29 inch plasma TV with 600 watts of incadesant light blazing in their house of 1700 sq feet on a lot that was wooded but clear-cut and now has no trees, then you know nothing about americans. Our religion is consume, consume, CONSUME! We must consume everything, we are proud to complain that our SUV takes $60.00 to fill and we need need to fill it every 2 days. we are proud that we drive at reckless speeds on the highways and rarely use that icky public transportation.

      The american dream is to own a large tree-less plot of land with a gigantic home and garage full of gas guzzling behomoths with a house full of power hungry appliances.

      Mmmmmm... give us all the electricity and fuel... we deserve it!

      GWB is no different.

    9. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh really?

      Name them.

      Really... I'm curious to hear what they are

    10. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by goldspider · · Score: 1
      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    11. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, I can't tell if you're sarcastic or just plain stupid. Please clarify.

    12. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google News seems to indicate right now (2005-08-08 1519 EST) that the big story is on the long term effects of the energy bill, not DST.

    13. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though I agree the rest of the energy bill stinks to high heaven, (The idea that we'd let an oil-man give billions to oil companies while they reap in record profits is ludicrous), this doesn't just affect techs. This will cost millions to fix. Why? There will be a few outages, but mostly it will be the thousands of labor hours to install another patch on all the servers and workstations in the country. Double that in Indiana where they will change to Daylight Savings Time next year, and apply a patch for all the servers and workstations again. How was this supposed to help us again?

    14. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Eggs-friggin-acctly! Am I the only one who remembers the election time promises for sweeping reform, investigation of alternative energy sources and infrastructure upgrades that were going to prevent the rolling blackouts etc. How exaclty did that turn into such a piddling little non-solution to a non-problem that this bill has effectively become.

    15. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Alyred · · Score: 1

      Oh, wow.

      $500.00 maximum lifetime credit for us working schlubs. And that's only if you spend $5,000.00 or more (as it's 10% of the cost of your home upgrade).

      And if I could afford to buy one of those overpriced hybrids that no mechanic but the dealer can work on (So I hear), I could get $1,700 or $3,000 tax credit!

      Unless, of course, I have to pay the AMT.

      Meanwhile, the oil and gas companies get billions for "developing new technology", with little to no oversight that I can see. How unexpected.

      -Alyred

    16. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Global Warming is something that cooks and liberals care about

      Yeah... Damn those cooks!
    17. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by goldspider · · Score: 1

      What exactly did you expect? Taxpayers to pay for your entire home-improvement project? Buy you a new car?

      The energy/fuel efficiency alone should be enough to get people to upgrade. Isn't that the right thing to do anyway? The tax break just sweetens the deal.

      But then I suspect that if a Democratic president signed this into law, you'd be applauding his/her committment to energy conservation.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    18. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      No, this is like Quayle spelling potato with an "e" on the end. It so mind numbingly stupid, we can't believe it has happened. And so we're going to talk about how much stupidity there is in congress.

      We already know the bill was chock full of backscrathcing for energy producers and miscellaneous pork, and a lack of interest in the environment. Thats a given. The fact that something so ridiculous actually made it through along with the slash and burn politics is news.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    19. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen brother.

      I've often wondered what would happen if one of the networks would choose to run Survivor or some other show like it instead of the State of the Union Address sometime. Just to see how many people would tune in to the Address if their normal brainwashing drivel was on at the same time.

    20. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The bill allocates a helluva lot more money (billions more) to give tax breaks, subsidies and loan guarantees to gas and oil companies (which are currently quite profitable).

      But go ahead, label the opposition as shallow name-callers. You'll get to stick your head in the sand a little longer that way!

      This bill is horrid (and massive) and only contains token efforts and funding to solve our *long-term* energy needs. But really, none of that matters because some people on the internet call the president names.

    21. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by KenAndCorey · · Score: 1

      Causes more pollution to turn it back into quality paper? I think not.

    22. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Buran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are going to claim that conservation does nothing good, back it up with sources. While not every conservation project is as successful as originally hoped, to say that all conservation is useless is ludicrous. If it were totally useless, no one would do it -- and instead there are many, many people -- paid and unpaid -- who work to ensure that conservation happens.

      The same is true for recycling programs.

      Also don't forget that many projects have long-term effects and take some time for the true effect to be realized. Your recycling example, for instance. While recycling processes are different from raw manufacturing, there's more to it than just that. Consider, for instance, the long-term effect of cutting down mature forests in terms of oxygen production, erosion, destruction of natural beauty, the effects on the biosphere as a whole, the destruction of habitat for animals that live in those forests, and so on.

      We can specifically point to the short-sighted actions of a logging company that destroyed the then-last-known habitat of the ivory-billed woodpecker -- in full knowledge of what they were doing as a result of information given to them by scientists. And look at how long it has taken to find out that the damage may not have been permanent after all -- but undoing their mess may not be possible if it turns out the birds have been wiped out to the point where the ones that have been sighted can no longer reproduce.

      You fall into the trap that so many others do of failing to think of the long term and thinking only in the short.

      Again, let's see some sources to prove those ridiculous accusations.

    23. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by nfgaida · · Score: 1

      What did you expect? Taxpayers to pay your oil company friends billions of dollars to expand their businesses? Oh wait...

      If you're going to bitch about tax credits, make sure you include the ones going to companies that really don't need them, but donated/bribed the campaign.

      --
      *elevator music plays*
    24. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1
      Hey, as long as you feel good about putting newspaper into the recycle bin, who cares that it produces more pollution to turn it back into quality paper than it would to plant a tree and harvest it? It's all about feeling good, isn't it?

      No, it's all about not being a phracking moron.

      Never do any research and find out that the #1 pollution from paper is from bleaching the pulp, which you have to do far less of with recycled. Never mind that each aluminum can recycled saves about the equivalent of 6 oz of gasoline in energy cost. Never mind us researching fuel cells for 40 years then ceding the market to Japan, Germany, and Canada because we are too stupid to even continue funding at existing levels.

      You seem to think that unbridled capitalism will produce the most efficient result. That's mostly true, yet capitalism doesn't care if it uses all the resources in the world and then what's left of us after a crash lives in a few underground bunkers or habitats. That's called a market correction. We can pay more for food and energy now to lessen it or we can get snapped back to ensign so fast our heads will still be spinning in our mass graves.

      That's basic Global Econ 101. Some people are just too stupid or short-sighted to understand the consequences of rampant capitalism.
    25. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by moonbender · · Score: 1

      It's still a conspiracy theory, it's just that what's happening is a conspiracy. (Okay, not in the legal sense.)

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    26. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      Probably. I don't remember Bush promising any such thing. Then again, I pretty much tune out what he does promise because whenever I see his lips move I know he's lying.

    27. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by moonbender · · Score: 1

      That has never stopped him before...

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    28. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      Those numbers are complete crap.

      Seriously, think this through. We have two sources of paper pulp. Dirty garbage, loaded with ink, wax, etc, and then we have a pure harvested tree from a tree farm. Do you really think it uses less energy to clean the garbage, sterilize it, bleach it, and turn it in quality paper? Do you really think it's harder to use a virgin wood pulp, and turn that directly into paper?

      Of course not. The problem is that those stats don't take into account the whole process of turning garbage into paper. It's extremely selective.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    29. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      What exactly did you expect? Taxpayers to pay for your entire home-improvement project? Buy you a new car?
      Why not? That's what the oil companies got!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    30. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      Never do any research and find out that the #1 pollution from paper is from bleaching the pulp, which you have to do far less of with recycled.

      Prove it -- and not from information on an eco advocacy site. I find it extremely difficult to believe that virgin wood pulp is harder to bleach than garbage loaded with ink, wax, plastic, etc. Sorry, but I just don't believe that something already clean and sterile is harder to process than something loaded with contaminants.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    31. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Zerbs · · Score: 1

      The problem with alternative energy is that most of it is still more expensive than the dirty sources we use today. Those that are cheaper aren't necessarily practical everywhere or at large scales needed for comercial energy production. The energy bill tries to level the playing field by doing things like tax breaks for hybrid vehicles, promoting processes that allow cheap coal to burn cleaner as opposed to only using the expensive clean coal, and allow for more nuclear energy use. (and before you complain about nuclear waste, remember that the fuel used in nuclear energy was radioactive before it was used as fuel)
      Also, the moderator is showing some poor political favoritism there saying this post is 5 insightfull, nowhere does this person even say why they think the energy bill is a mess, just tries to state it as fact.

      --
      "22 astronauts were born in Ohio. What is it about your state that makes people want to flee the Earth?" Stephen Colbert
    32. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by LanceMan · · Score: 1

      At least recycling does not invovle filling a landfill. Useing new growth for pulp means the old paper was probably thrown away, into a landfill. Landfills really are bad in one way, NO ONE wants them in their county. It is almost impossible to open one now.

    33. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      But that's a different problem. If you want to argue that it's better to create more pollution than create more landfills, I'll listen to that argument.

      Anyway, landfills are a temporary problem. Thermal Depolymerization is the long-term solution.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    34. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      Politically speaking, I think the DST change they threw in is working... it detracts from everything else in the bill.

      Politics at work.

    35. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      we can't get our President to even mention the word conservation

      Conservation is 4 syllables. Try "save" or "goat" or something a little more simple.

    36. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by dustmachine · · Score: 1

      Patriot Act, Schmatriot Act. Give me one specific example of how your life has been negatively impacted. And don't say "oooh, ooh, my civil liberties."

      But it sure is fun to complain about ain't it?

      However, I do agree with what I think is the point of your post: our representatives (state and federal) spend way too much time on useless things. Can anyone tell me what the Official State Muffin of Minnesota is?

      And yeah, I'm off-topic too.

    37. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by theantipop · · Score: 1
      The same is true for recycling programs.
      Recycling is a bad example of your argument. The reason most types of recycling exist is because people don't know that it isn't doing any good. Recycling of most things (glass, paper, plastic) is costly, dirty, wasteful work. Ignoring the fact that recycled plastic costs much more than newly manufactured stuff, even after our government subsidies the recycling plants, the process of recycling plastic introduces many chemicals into the environment as or more dangerous than would be had by throwing it away and making a new one. Recycling isn't popular because it isn't useless. It's because people feel good about themselves for doing it.
    38. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      If you are going to claim that conservation does nothing good, back it up with sources.

      Conservation of a finite resource is only going to extend the time until the finite resource is expended completely.

      Concerning oil reserves, I've heard that we were going to run out in 2020 and other dates that are only consistent in being in a year greater than the current year. I feel pretty comfortable that we can get by in life without fossil fuels. We did it before they were discovered, and I think we can use something else.

      Personally, I'm confused as to the real reasons for the conservation effort by our government, especially W's fondness of helping fellow oil people (yes, I'm completely ignorant of this proposal by choice).

      Now conservation of things like forests by keeping people out of them for an indefinite amount of time seems to work, but conserving something with a known finite time limit of supply seems a little silly.

    39. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Putting paper into a landfill puts carbon back in the ground. Then more trees are cut, and their carbon put back into the ground. Offsets oil and coal production a little.

      Don't forget the forests need renewal from time to time. We can cut them, or we can start a fire, doesn't matter to the forest, so long as we clear all the underbrush. (some trees need fire to release the seeds though, which is why I'm against fighting all those fires in California, but most trees are not so selective) Smokey the Bear is wrong you should be starting a forest fire. In many areas you should start it yearly. Logging companies accomplish much the same result, but without hurting 'bambi' (who would have been just fine in the fire, but it makes a bad movie).

    40. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of course, others of us are thankful we don't have a President who manipulates the populace with "feel good" solution such as "conservation" that actually do nothing about the real problems.

      What are the real problems? If it's using craploads of energy like it's free for the taking, then conservation is not about feeling good, it's about fixing the goddamn problem. Of course, it's not my problem that you bury your head in the sand with your ass up in the air...of course, you're just leaving your ass open for all kinds of mischeif, but that was your decision, wasn't it? Hey "Dick" Cheney, there's one you missed, yessir, his head is still buried deep...

      Unfortunately, there are too many people who just want leaders to "say the right things" to make them think they "care until they bleed." *cough*Clinton*cough*

      Clinton may have been a lying asshole, but he was a caring lying fornicating asshole. I'll take a caring asshole over an asshole who can't speak, read, or spell but has the authority to send my children to a really fucked-up death in a hot miserable desert fighting people who just want to figure out where their next meal and water are coming from. Oh, and by the way, the children of the wealthy are exempt from this...ask around, and find out how many children from wealthy familys are over in Iraq fighting for oil...erm, I mean freedom. Then find out how many are from cities where urban decay has set in and people are desperately seeking a way out to a better life. For once, I would like to see someone refute this, with hard solid facts.

      You seem to think that if only a leader would wave his magic arm, alternative energy sources would magically appear, solving all our oil problems. It will NEVER work that way.

      Yeah, but not for the reasons you think. You don't get it, and as long as you think that profit$ are your God, then you never will. Money has more meaning to you than human life. Go ahead, try to refute this. I love to watch money grubbers stumble around to morally justify their positions.

      If some EcoBleeder wants alternative energy to work, then EcoBleeder should invent something that's cheaper than oil. Presto! Alternative energy is in.

      You haven't done your math lately. At the going rate, it will be cheaper in less than a decade. That tired, worn-out mantra used for over 20+ years doesn't phase me in the least, because the measures that you're using are hopelessly out of date by over two decades. Pull your beef'n'pork-fed head out of your distinctly suburbanite ass and look over the costs involved. Show me how we'll have cheaper oil in 10 years when the crap is getting harder to find, harder to extract, and more expensive each and every fucking day. Solar, Wind, Hydro, and other "low-impact" power sources are not about "feeling good". They're about energy independence and not relying on a country where they still execute people by public beheading. Oh, wait, we don't want to get into a discussion about morality and "setting an example", nosir, it's about "feeling good". Gawd, grow a brainstem.

      Oh, and yes, I've already put my money where my mouth is (as if that's some kind of measure). I have a heavy "investment" in solar right now and I'm enjoying the rewards of it every single sunny day.

      Let's not even get into how wasteful recycling is from an energy standpoint. Hey, as long as you feel good about putting newspaper into the recycle bin, who cares that it produces more pollution to turn it back into quality paper than it would to plant a tree and harvest it? You have absolutely no fucking clue as to what clearcutting does. I have to live in this kind of bass-ackward thinking. Next time you take a plane trip over the Northwest in the US, get a long hard look at the patchwork quilt that was once our forests. That is, if you can still find a forest. Most of it is rotting stumps. Oh, wait a minute, why the fuck are we using paper pulp to begin with, when people have used

    41. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by srleffler · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, there is some merit in just keeping the stuff out of landfills even if no other benefit is achieved. In urban areas at least, there is a finite amount of good landfill space available, and keeping recyclable plastics out of the landfill can make trash disposal significantly cheaper in the long run. If that cost savings is more than the difference between the cost of recycling plastic and the cost of making new plastic, we come out ahead.

    42. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Buran · · Score: 1

      You are correct. If we do not lower/eliminate use of fossil fuels by choice (which seems to be what is happening despite many, many people trying to raise the alarm, people who are more-qualified to talk about these things than the people who are making policies) we will be forced to stop using them when they are gone.

      This will then reduce the carrying capacity of the land, at least until alternatives are found that can bring it back up, and who will look bad for doing something about it when there was a chance?

      The uneducated fools who failed to listen to those who tried to warn us, of course.

      Typical ...

    43. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by srleffler · · Score: 1

      And what's wrong with extending the time until a finite resource is expended? It gives us more time to come up with other options...

    44. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I keep thinking about how we're killing the environment, that we can't get our President to even mention the word conservation, that we are making little to no progress toward using alternative energy sources, and on and on. But the fact that my cell phone might get confused by the new Daylight Savings Time is what we're hearing about not just on /. but on all sorts of other media outlets.

      Amen.

      The bill is 1,724 pages long, and somehow I doubt that much of it involves daylight savings. Anyone got a link to the pdf? ;-(

      To get away from this daylight savings BS, I read somewhere that the bill includes tax credits for hybrid vehicles, but the description I read was sufficiently ignorant that it was impossible to figure out the amount of the credit.

      Anyone know the details?

    45. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      And what's wrong with extending the time until a finite resource is expended? It gives us more time to come up with other options...

      How much time do you need, and how much will conservation give you?

      I've only conserved things when I was low and I knew a time that it would be fixed. Something like, I only have $50 for the rest of the week until payday. I have to stretch that out.

      Lets all start conserving air by breathing less, the trees and other CO2->sun->O2 products might stop doing their stuff soon.

      Doesn't make much sense does it?

    46. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      You haven't done your math lately. At the going rate, it will be cheaper in less than a decade.

      Despite your silly tin-foil rant, You're right (Except for the timeframe, probably more like 50 years). So what are you complaining about? The problem will take care of itself. When oil gets too expensive, we'll convert to something else. Simple economics.

      We don't just "convert to it now" because it's not economical to do so, and it just doesn't matter that much, despite the chicken littles.

      Relax. Everything will work out, because it always does. The year 2000 bug was a disaster -- and yet it wasn't, because when the shit hits the fan and people HAVE to figure things out, things get figured out. Necessity really is the mother of invention. A cliche, but a true one. The world simply ain't gonna end if oil gets expensive.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    47. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      How do you intend to convince anyone about Global Warming, if you have nothing but patronizing contempt for them?

    48. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exaclty did that turn into such a piddling little non-solution to a non-problem that this bill has effectively become.

      I believe it's called Congress.

    49. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by BAM0027 · · Score: 1

      But, but, but...talking about the other stuff you mentioned would show some sophistication and it might even (gasp!) raise the issues! We fear change!

      Excuse me while I join my neighbors in hiding my head in the sand.

    50. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a complete dip.

      It takes far less effort to turn paper back in to paper that it does to harvest, haul, and pulp wood. And if you think that we bleach most of our used paper, think again. Most of it ends up as cardboard.

      Tree are a very inefficient source of paper fiber. Tree paper is also the worst and no where near the cheapest. The trouble is, a company can rent an acre of land from BLM for $15 a month, harvest the trees, and then BLM has to regrow the timber. Basically, the paper pulpers get the trees for free, and we have to pay to replant them. If they had to pay for their own wood, you'd see cotton or hemp paper in an instant.

      This is how most mining and harvesting works. This is why we still do things the wrong way. There is no justification for this process. Law lawmakers and happy industry are the downfall of conservation.

    51. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by chicago_bulls · · Score: 1

      "The Energy bill is a mess the likes of which haven't been seen since the Patriot Act. That's where the focus needs to be."

      well said...

      oh, and nobody in the media seemed to notice that the senate just passed a 300 BILLION dollar bill for ROADS!!!
      http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/29/highway.bil l.ap/

      did i miss something...wasn't there all of this uproar about that 87 billion dollars for iraq? hey, those soldiers can find their own armor, but those potholes have to go!

      this makes me wonder how the corruption between government and the media actually works. are the news people just dumb, are they in cahoots with all the congressmen, or are they only controlled by a few so that, unless those few get angry, they don't report it.

      i think we need more reporters like this guy...
      http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI D=/20050804/EDIT/508040321/1003

    52. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think Reality Master 101 knows what he's talking about? Do you really think he's not a complete retard who can't even look up his own facts? Do you really think implying something makes it true?

      Duh of course not. He's just another ignorant republican trying to justify his ignorance... oh really?
      --
      From the "Yeah but I don't like those facts" dept.

    53. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by srleffler · · Score: 1
      This seems to be a lot of the difference between pro- and anti-conservation people. Those who are in favor of conservation see a clear deadline looming. We may not be sure exactly when it will come, but that doesn't really matter. Those who are opposed just don't see the threat.

      To use your example, if you're not sure you have enough money to make it to payday, wouldn't you at least consider economizing to make sure you make it? To pro-conservation people, anti-conservation people seem like the guy who doesn't know how much money he has left, doesn't know when his next payday is, and doesn't really care. He'll just keep spending until he runs out of cash. Foolish.

    54. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by defaria · · Score: 1

      'Cept that most of the time your carefully recycled plastics end up in the landfill anyways.

    55. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      The same is true for recycling programs.

      Also don't forget that many projects have long-term effects and take some time for the true effect to be realized. Your recycling example, for instance. While recycling processes are different from raw manufacturing, there's more to it than just that. Consider, for instance, the long-term effect of cutting down mature forests in terms of oxygen production, erosion, destruction of natural beauty, the effects on the biosphere as a whole, the destruction of habitat for animals that live in those forests, and so on.


      Did you know that paper is harvested exclusively from trees grown FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAPER? Wow, damn. You mean, they're not cutting down the rainforest to supply me with my shiny photopaper? You mean that they're actually planting MORE trees, just because we waste MORE paper?

      Saying that paper that comes from trees grown for paper is killing off the trees of the world, is like saying that french fries are killing off the potatoes of the world.

      Next, it cost more money, and more energy to recycle everything EXCEPT metals. This is plastics, and paper (styrofoam should be handled specially just because if improperly disposed of it can produce hazardous chemicals. Plastic doesn't break down well, no hazardous products, and paper decomposes like most organic materials.) That's why the only people paying you to give them recyclable materials are the people buying aluminium (feasibly all metal is just as recyclable, just only aluminium is the most prevailent.)

      If you want proof on these "ridiculous accusations" pick up a copy of Penn and Teller's Bullshit. Look for the season that has "Recycling". They attack each point of recycling, and conservation. Also, they'll help get you over a couple of other idiot ideas, like second hand smoke kills thousands of people a year.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    56. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      If you want proof on these "ridiculous accusations" pick up a copy of Penn and Teller's Bullshit.

      Nothing says proof to me like a book by a couple of magicians, one of whom doesn't speak.

    57. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by roesti · · Score: 1
      Did you know that paper is harvested exclusively from trees grown FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAPER?
      So, what happens when we start using up paper products faster than we can grow said trees? An economist might not think there are limits to these sorts of things, but, well, they're wrong.
      Next, it cost more money, and more energy to recycle everything EXCEPT metals.
      Recycling plastic and glass can be as simple as cleaning it - in fact, that's one of the reasons we use so much of it. With a bit of imagination, it's actually much easier to recycle them than paper or metal.
      If you want proof on these "ridiculous accusations" pick up a copy of Penn and Teller's Bullshit.
      I like Penn and Teller as much as the next guy, but I consider them entertaining more than encyclopaedic.
    58. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Even an idiot can speak the truth.

      Go and actually watch the series that they released (it's a TV series, not a book.)

      Seriously, go watch the whole of the two seasons available on DVD, then provide me with proper feedback and criticism.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    59. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      So, what happens when we start using up paper products faster than we can grow said trees? An economist might not think there are limits to these sorts of things, but, well, they're wrong.

      Yes, you can short your supply if demand gets high enough. But the paper companies don't go out and deforest the rain forest. You want to know who does? Those lovely third world farmers, who depend on growing crops to feed their families.

      They slash and burn the rainforest, because they don't care. They'd rather LIVE than let the rainforest live. Everyone else who's consuming wood is generally doing so in a conservationist manner.

      Recycling plastic and glass can be as simple as cleaning it - in fact, that's one of the reasons we use so much of it. With a bit of imagination, it's actually much easier to recycle them than paper or metal.

      This is called *REUSE* not recycling. The process that takes plastic and produces thread for clothing is extremely inefficient, and cost more money and energy than producing new thread from raw materials. Same with glass.

      This is because beyond personal reuse, people don't just take used materials, clean them, and return them to the line. Things don't work like that. Yes, if you keep your plastic bottles and continue to reuse them, rather than recycle them, you save energy. But if you turn them into a recycler, there will be a net loss of energy and money to recycle that item into something else.

      We spend $8 billion a year on recycling; to lose energy, and money, also to generate jobs that are created just to waste energy and money, and cannot in any way be considered enjoyable jobs. Why do we do this? To solve this problem where we think that we don't have enough landfill space, or that landfills are band.

      We have plenty of landfill space. To make a landfill for the entire US (the most wasteful country in the world) for the next 100 years would just be a spec on the map of the US.

      Also, landfills are clean sites that have been thoroughly investigated for potential contamination, and properly protected, and even produce enough methane to produce energy for a few hundred homes.

      I like Penn and Teller as much as the next guy, but I consider them entertaining more than encyclopaedic.

      While Penn and Teller's Bullshit is definitely entertainment, there is nothing wrong with their facts. And if there is, you can actually DISCUSS them. See, that's the formulation of a good argument. You have discussable points. Blanketly saying, "If there aren't any immediate benefits then there must be long term benefits, because recycling makes me feel good," is not a good start for an argument.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    60. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by srleffler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's still one less thing in the landfill that way. The plastics go through the consumer market twice, but only one of the two consumer products eventually ends up in the landfill. Net result: the amount of plastic in the landfill is cut in half.

    61. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      It's not so bad that we're spending that much on roads, it's that huge amounts of it are straight pork. Like the bridge that's going up in Alaska for ~$230 million, to connect an island to a city of 8000 people. The island has 50 people on it, and there's a ferry that goes back and forth every 15 minutes. Must be because Alaska, the largest state with the lowest population per square mile is pressed for land.

    62. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Patriot Act, Schmatriot Act. Give me one specific example of how your life has been negatively impacted. And don't say "oooh, ooh, my civil liberties."

      Red herring. If the act has produced zero tangible benefits but has infringed on even a single person's rights, that much is too much.

    63. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Zulfi · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right. Infact, I once realized that for the place I lived in (Seattle, WA), for most of the year, the only way to save the electricity bill is by improving the effectiveness of the thermal insulation in appartments. Just think about it, all appliances like refrigerators, T.V.s, computers, lights, eventually convert their electricity to heat. Theoretically, the thermostat should be able to detect the temperature change when these appliances are used, and compensate for it by having the room heater consume less power. So, it doesn't matter whether I stay in bed all day, or I stay up all night with my appartment as bright as a studio. I will always consume the same amount of power. The only way to save power is to change the setting on the thermostat at nights, which I never did.

      I concluded that most of the heat would dissipate through a large French window in my apartment. So, the only way for me to have saved the electricity bill was to have the window modified. I think this is true of most houses (and also many offices) in the northern parts of the U.S - basically the only way to save power is to either tinker with the settings of the thermostat, or to improve the effectiveness of the thermal insulation. It is useless to turn off lights, computers and other appliances. Ofcourse, this is not true in summer, and also in places where A.C. is used, and not heating.

    64. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Conservation of a finite resource is only going to extend the time until the finite resource is expended completely.

      But there are plenty of resources that aren't finite. Fish and forests are prime examples.

      I feel pretty comfortable that we can get by in life without fossil fuels. We did it before they were discovered, and I think we can use something else.

      But of course the planets population is six times what it was then, and economies are becomming less and less agrarian. And even if we manage to completely switch to using nuclear, solar, tidal, or geothermal power, it's going to be our races single largest undertaking to switch from using 99% fossil fuels to other forms of energy.

      What I find most puzzeling about people who blow off energy conservation, is that it's in their own financial interests to do so. Why pay $100 a month on electric bills when you could pay $20? Why pay $40 at the pump when you could pay $20? Do these people like throwing money away?

    65. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU'RE killing the environment, fucktard. Thanks for all those stupid cell phone towers because you think you need to be able to yack on your phone everywhere, dickhead.

    66. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservation/recycling is stupid. I don't need fuckhead nannyists like you telling me what to do. I'll use whatever the fuck I please and dispose of it wherever.

    67. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Here is a torrent of season 2 of Penn & Teller: Bullshit, which contains the Recycling episode. Unfortunately I couldn't find a torrent of just that episode. I would really recommend this to everybody. Recycling is wasteful at every step of the way and it's only benefit is that it makes you feel good (but hey, so does smoking).

    68. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      What I find most puzzeling about people who blow off energy conservation, is that it's in their own financial interests to do so. Why pay $100 a month on electric bills when you could pay $20? Why pay $40 at the pump when you could pay $20? Do these people like throwing money away?


      Probably because there is no perceived benefit to conserving. You MIGHT get your electric bill down to $20 if you don't use ANY AC or electric fans - until the electric company raises its rates because its revenue is dropping. My mom used to try to conserve heating gas in the winter, but she finally decided it was too damn cold, and the bills were going up anyway, no matter how low she tried to turn it.
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    69. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > Our religion is consume, consume, CONSUME! We must consume everything

      You left out the more important part to this conversation. That is we must blame others first, after all my SUV would be of no consequence if I were the only one driving one.

      The rush limbugh quote sums it up something like "God wouldn't give me the power to destroy the earth."

      however I do agree with this quote, he is not destroying the earth, just making it in-habitable for humans.

    70. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Give you a concrete example of how the Patriot Act had made my life harder?

      No problem. I'm a field engineer for a large company. I fly everywhere all the time. My teammate and I live in the same city and take the same flights everywhere we go. I'm overweight and he's a second generation American with Arab Israeli grandparents.

      We both get harassed, stopped, searched, and detained EVERY TIME WE FLY. Just because his name sounds a little too much like a terrorists, and just because, as one security screener said, I look like I "could be packing anything under that belly."

      THAT is how the Patriot Act has specifically affected me.

      Does this do more than mildly annoy me? You bet your sweet ass it does. I spent an extra 6-8 hours a week in the airport dealing with this crap. A whole extra workday away from my wife and kids just because some stuffed suit politician who wouldn't know security if it crawled up and bit the inside of his ass has decided that this nice little illusion of "safe air travel" can get him re-elected.

      IT doesn't stop there either. Some friends of mine were eating in a cafe, sitting at an outdoor table, when a group of federal agents decided they resembled two suspects they were tailing. Never mind they were each right in the middle of a burger, never mind that they barely matched the description of the suspects.. no, they had M-16 muzzles shoved in their faces, they were forced to the ground, and they were searched, cuffed, and detained with no probable cause. When one of the friends, himself a former police officer, asked what exactly they had done and why assault rifles were being pointed at their faces; the response was "Fuck you, I'm a federal agent, I can do what I want." Two hours later, the real suspects were caught 45 miles away, and the federal agents left. No apologies. No nothing.

      Personally that scares the shit out of me.

    71. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by dustmachine · · Score: 1

      If the act has produced zero tangible benefits[...]

      How about the absence of terrorist attacks on the homeland? I'd say that's one tangible benefit.

    72. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      You MIGHT get your electric bill down to $20 if you don't use ANY AC or electric fans - until the electric company raises its rates because its revenue is dropping. My mom used to try to conserve heating gas in the winter, but she finally decided it was too damn cold, and the bills were going up anyway, no matter how low she tried to turn it.

      I wasn't talking so much about making signifigant sacrificies so much as the kind of people who blow off the very idea of conservation. So let me rephrase: so why would your mother want to pay $100 a month in electric bills when she could have the same lifestyle/living conditions for $20 a month?

    73. Re:Of all the things in the Energy Bill by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      How about the absence of terrorist attacks on the homeland? I'd say that's one tangible benefit.

      Except there is no sign whatsoever that the Patriot Act, endless detentions or other increases in law enforcment powers at the expense of civil rights have prevented any terrorist attacks. So no, there have been no tangible benefits.

  24. Politicians? by daed350 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Shouldn't the whole physics and time measurements be regulated by a scientific body rather than a group of political morons? Maybe I'm crazy.

    1. Re:Politicians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not crazy. The purpose of this exercise is psychological: they need to cause a "break with the old era" in the american populace's mind to cement american's new-found fascist superpower status.

      This also serves to demonstrate that the project-for-a-new-american-reich politicians are in control, not the scientists.

      Plus, it means lots of churn as non-compliant gadgets need replacing, non-compliant by-laws need updating (an excellent opportunity to embed pro-corporatist riders into them), etc.

      (Yes, Penelope, people can do things for more than one reason, one of the all-time stupidest things is humans searching for "the real reason" something happened: Invading Iraq got rid of Saddam AND increased Halliburton's profits AND slowed the transition to the Euro as the global reserve currency of choice AND distracted the american public from a worsening domestic situation AND lots of other stuff. I don't know why other people search for "the" reason someone did something, if I can do things for more than one reason at once, so can a bunch of malevolently intelligent neofascists.)

    2. Re:Politicians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, time keeping doesn't change, just the local time zone.

      Other than that -- GREAT point!

  25. Re:Nothing to see here. Please move along. by daviq · · Score: 0

    All the Computers in the world are crashing...ahhhhhh! Wait...mine hasn't:).

    --
    Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
  26. Living in AZ by DigiWood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...I don't have to bother with daylight savings. The heat sucks but hey it's a tradeoff.

    --


    Nothing is impossible. It just hasn't been figured out yet.
    1. Re:Living in AZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MODERATORS -- please mark parent as informative or insightful or interesting or brilliant or something, pleaseeeee

    2. Re:Living in AZ by Avenger337 · · Score: 1

      Wait, so you're saying that without DST it's hotter?

    3. Re:Living in AZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      out here in the west, babies are issued 6-shooters at birth for just such an occasion. We'd shoot you if you made us change our clocks twice a year.

    4. Re:Living in AZ by prockcore · · Score: 1

      The heat sucks but hey it's a tradeoff.

      I think that's actually the cause of us not having DST.

      Supposedly having an extra hour of daylight after you get home from work conserves energy because you won't have to turn on the lights. In Arizona, an extra hour of daylight after work means the AC is working hard for an extra hour.

      In fact, now that AC is common, they should redo the studies. I think having lights on or off is a drop in the bucket compared to turning the AC up for an extra hour.

  27. Why? by Glendale2x · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm still waiting for someone to point out a really good reason why we need DST. All it does is irritate me having to deal with resetting clocks.

    Furthermore, what the hell does this have to do with energy conservation? I'm still going to turn the fracking lights on when it gets dark; I don't look at the clock and go "hey, it's 7, time to turn on all the lights."

    --
    this is my sig
    1. Re:Why? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      I'm still waiting for someone to point out a really good reason why we need DST.

      Here is a reason, you can decide on your own whether or not this is a 'good' reason.

      the fracking lights

      Off topic: I love Battlestar Galactica. I think it is truly a great show. But, whoever invented the phrase "fracking" should be put in front of a firing line and shot.

    2. Re:Why? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      See http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/c.html

      According to that (and other references) it not only saves ~1% of energy, it has the nice side-effect of giving us an hour more of daylight in the evening, when most people want it.

      If you've ever had to rake leaves in the fall, you really notice when we revert to "normal" time and it's too dark to rake after work/dinner.

    3. Re:Why? by Aidtopia · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm still waiting for someone to point out a really good reason why we need DST.

      There are several studies that show Daylight Saving time saves lives (pedestrians and automobile traffic), reduces violent crime, and saves electricity.

      Here's one example.
    4. Re:Why? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "All it does is irritate me having to deal with resetting clocks."

      Set your clocks to UCT, and learn to do addition.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Why? by Buran · · Score: 1

      I agree. Changing the spelling of swear words doesn't change the fact that they're swear words. People these days as a whole have gotten a lot ruder and swear left and right when it's far from acceptable. It seems like dropping a swear word into polite conversation doesn't even get the speaker a second glance anymore and anyone who takes offense at it gets looked like they're crazy.

      Since when was it necessary all of a sudden to swear when talking about something like turning lights on?

    6. Re:Why? by Glendale2x · · Score: 1

      Set your clocks to UCT, and learn to do addition.

      I already do this with servers. It does tend to confuse people, however.

      --
      this is my sig
    7. Re:Why? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was thinking from the 'opposite' direction. I am one of those people that drop swear words in conversation all the time (I do make some attempts to limit my use of the words in certain circumstances). "Frack" is supposed to be a swear word. Why not get over the idiotic respelling and, instead, spell out the word the way it is supposed to be spelled. Using a re-spelling is childish. It is almost like using a 'beep' on television. We all know what you want to say, just say it!

    8. Re:Why? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      But, whoever invented the phrase "fracking" should be put in front of a firing line and shot.

      Exactly. Who the frell thought up that dren?

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    9. Re:Why? by Buran · · Score: 1

      That's also a good point. And we both ask a very good question: why are we bothering to change the spelling of a swear word to make it more "palatable" somehow? We all know it's a swear word!

      Why do people never say what they mean anymore?

    10. Re:Why? by willpall · · Score: 1
      Furthermore, what the hell does this have to do with energy conservation? I'm still going to turn the fracking lights on when it gets dark; I don't look at the clock and go "hey, it's 7, time to turn on all the lights."

      No, but you do look at the clock and say "hey, it's 11, time to go to bed." Well, with DST, there is less hours of dark between 7 and 11 than there are without DST. That's less light you use.

      Whether this is a good reason to have DST... I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
    11. Re:Why? by JahToasted · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words. You can't say Fuck, but you can say Frack. When you say Frack, everyone knows that you mean Fuck, everyone mentally replace Frack with Fuck. But still its ok to use Frack everywhere on TV, while one Fuck will get you into trouble with the FCC.

    12. Re:Why? by Surt · · Score: 1

      There are businesses that operate 9-5, regardless of when 9-5 fall. If more of 9-5 occur during daylight hours, they turn on less lights, use less heating than if they fall during night hours.

      They also demand that their employees work during 9-5. If that means that their commute falls in the dark, the accident rate goes up. If it falls during light hours, the accident rate goes down. This saves lives.

      There are a lot of good reasons for DST, most of which have to do with saving people from the stupidity of businesses that insist on operating 9-5.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    13. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still waiting for someone to point out a really good reason why we need DST.

      DST is a handy time to remind everyone to change the batteries in their smoke detectors. Houses all over America would burn without it.

    14. Re:Why? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Here is a reason, you can decide on your own whether or not this is a 'good' reason.

      It's not, and the person who wrote it is a jackass:

      Studies done by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.

      Hey, if we extend it to go year-round, we can save an extra 160%! Also:

      Daylight Saving Time saves lives and prevents traffic injuries. The earlier Daylight Saving Time allowed more people to travel home from work and school in daylight, which is much safer than darkness. And except for the months of November through February, Daylight Saving Time does not increase the morning hazard for those going to school and work.

      That person who wrote that is a damn liar. According to the US Navy (who take this whole time thing quite seriously), sunrise on November 3, 2007 at my house will be at 7:05AM CST, or 8:05AM CDT. In other words, I'm at work and the kids are in school before the sun ever rises. It won't be as bad when it goes into effect that spring (6:49/7:49 instead of 6:11/7:11 under the old plan), but that's still obnoxious. The poor kids in Fargo, ND have it even worse.

      What they really mean is "the majority of the people who would be ready to lynch us for pulling this boneheaded maneuver will be only slightly inconvenienced". Miamians gets light 35 minutes earlier (within their timezone) than us northerners, so I'm sure this seems a lot more reasonable to the AARP crowd who're most likely to vote.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    15. Re:Why? by Buran · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean that people consider it OK to use this as an excuse to swear every other word. I sure don't; I think it's ridiculous. While I don't agree that any words should be banned by the government (if you think the government should get involved in such things, you need to rethink it all over), I don't approve of the current mentality that swearing like a sailor is OK... especially not in polite company, or in online discussions. (I try to be polite, clear, and write as if I'm writing something for general public consumption ... which I actually am).

      I just don't think it reflects all that well on society, the overall 'believability' of what is being said, the attitude of the speaker, and how we perceive each other.

      And thank you for the link. I'm enjoying reading it.

    16. Re:Why? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      The idea is, because the sun rises and sets and different times throughout the year, DST seeks to minimise the amount of darkness hours that the average human is awake.

      Regardless of whether the sun sets at 7 or 8 pm, you will still be going to bed at the same time. Thus, you will be using electricity to keep your lights on for an additional one whole hour if the sun sets at 7pm. Thus, with DST, the sun will set at 8pm at that time of the year, and therefore you will not need to power the light bulbs that extra hour.

    17. Re:Why? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Studies done by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.

      Hey, if we extend it to go year-round, we can save an extra 160%!


      160% of one day's worth of energy.. even so, if the effects were the same year-round, the total conservation would be 1% of one year's worth of electricity. So.. like $20 per person, or 7 gallons of gas or something. Hardly worth the effort.

      You could get far better energy savings by mandating a minimum MPG for passenger vehicles or telling everyone to turn out the lights at night to prevent a terrorist attack.

    18. Re:Why? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Oops.. I based my energy costs on living on an island where my average power bill is $200/mo. It would be considerably less for someone on the mainland. But we don't use no stinkin DST here anyway.. The days are pretty close to 12 hours long year-round in the tropics, and dawn/dusk are considerably shorter.

    19. Re:Why? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      160% of one day's worth of energy

      Well, right. The quoted text sounded silly to me; was the alternative to save 2% some days and nothing on others? Of course you'd save an average of $(average savings) EACH DAY (emphasis theirs) by definition.

      I completely agree that 1% isn't worth the hassle. Giving everyone a free CF bulb and asking them to use it would probably do a lot more in the long run, even though I'd find that equally preposterous.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    20. Re:Why? by JahToasted · · Score: 1
      Oh, I agree. I don't havew any problems expressing myself without swearing. But I don't get all uptight is someone does swear around me. If someone is swearing excessively, I don't get offended, though I may lower my opinion of the person swearing. Just the same as I'd feel if someone brought up an innapropriate topic.

      But I find rules against swearing to be stupid. Like George Carlin says, they're just words. We've all heard them before. It's ridiculous that they have to use Frack or Frell or whatever instead of Fuck. We know thats what they mean. In real life people use the Fuck. So on a TV show when someone is in an extreme situation you expect Fuck, but get Frack instead. It kinda takes something away, you know?

    21. Re:Why? by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      No, but you do look at the clock and say "hey, it's 11, time to go to bed." Well, with DST, there is less hours of dark between 7 and 11 than there are without DST. That's less light you use.

      Whether this is a good reason to have DST... I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

      Except for those of us who work in environments that are largely isolated from natural light. Like basement home offices. Doesn't do jack shit for me and it's pretty fucking depressing up here in the latitudes north of 45N when the sun goes down at 4:30 in December, especially since when you live in Seattle where it's already gray and the sun actually sets behind the mountains before official sunset.

      Move up here and you'll get up in the morning and go to work in the dark and go home in the dark.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  28. does canada have to follow this? by js3 · · Score: 1

    Does canada have to go along with this Daylight stupidity? The current one seems just fine to me.

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
    1. Re:does canada have to follow this? by Kiaser+Wilhelm+II · · Score: 1

      It will probably be slipped in the next revision of NAFTA.

      Enjoy!

      --
      Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
      Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
    2. Re:does canada have to follow this? by chrish · · Score: 1

      Until they annex Canada to stop the "flood" of "terrorists" coming over the border into the US. One secure, United States of North America...

      --
      - chrish
    3. Re:does canada have to follow this? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      yes, otherwise we will be "liberated".
      We won't have time to get the military gear out of the museums fast enough.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    4. Re:does canada have to follow this? by Malc · · Score: 1

      Well that's not going to be an issue until the US stops letting terrorists in legally and giving them visas to go to flight school (6 months after they're dead too!)

    5. Re:does canada have to follow this? by LordEd · · Score: 1

      *sigh*... go talk to the US customs oficers. Its the US customs agents that let people into the states, not Canada.

    6. Re:does canada have to follow this? by djdole · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, they don't. They'll do whatever England does, since they're still the Queen's bitch.

      /me puts on his hockey stick proof, anti maple leaf asbestos pants.

    7. Re:does canada have to follow this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily Canada has gotten to the point that we are so anti-American that we will not go along with it just to spite the Americans.

    8. Re:does canada have to follow this? by djdole · · Score: 1

      /me realizes it's Canada we're talking about and decided the pants are not needed. I mean, come-on...IT'S CANADA! They make France look aggressive.

    9. Re:does canada have to follow this? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Here and here you can see that Canada is facing so-called "economic" pressure to conform to the change.

      Personally, I don't see this causing any huge problems. Several places don't observe DST at all and there are no significant economic impacts.

      The biggest problem will be in devices that were designed for use in North America that have DST hard coded into them (in cases where DST is used at all). The only options are to either have DST in the device go off at the wrong time, or else not have the DST feature enabled at all, and have to manually reset it twice a year. I predict that this will cause _FAR_ more problems than any alleged economic gains that they expect to get from this change.

    10. Re:does canada have to follow this? by ekc · · Score: 1

      In theory, extending DST to cover a greater proportion of the year would work best at lower latitudes, where the winter time drop in day length is less severe. Otherwise, your kids may wind up walking to school in the pitch dark. Then again, I imagine Scandinavian kids are quite used to that already and think we Canadians are wimps. I'll never forget those videos of businessmen skiing to work wearing headlamps during the Lillehammer Olympic coverage.

      At higher latitudes, it might actually make more sense to move back a second hour during the height of summer to take advantage of the very long days. Anyway, I don't think Canadians or Alaskans should be forced to follow along, and the potential confusion over having two systems is probably overblown. It can't be worse than the metric/non-metric schism, yet life has gone on since then...

  29. Why? by Crashmaster007 · · Score: 1

    Tell me again why we really need this change. Daylight savings time was fine the way it was, heck if anything get rid of it, would make my life easier. It wont make a positive change to anything, it will only make things worse, with changing VCR tims and so on. And what about automated time systems like rail systems and so on?

    --
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
  30. Damn you, BUUUUUUUSH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You broke all my toys! You BASTARD! I am *SO* not voting for you again.

  31. Purpose? by CockblockTheVote · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Can someone explain to me what purpose this is supposed to serve? What is it solving? How is this going to save energy? Is this to confuse the terra-ists?

    1. Re:Purpose? by outlineblue · · Score: 1

      This is the USA's solution to global warming. Apprently this will save something like 100 000 barrels of oil each YEAR! wow! what that, 0.00001% of yearly consumption?

    2. Re:Purpose? by CockblockTheVote · · Score: 1

      call me dumb, but i don't understand how. if it's cold, i'm still going to turn on the heat, if it's dark i'm still going to turn on the lights.

    3. Re:Purpose? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How is this going to save energy?
      How about this?.

    4. Re:Purpose? by Steve525 · · Score: 2, Informative

      call me dumb, but i don't understand how. if it's cold, i'm still going to turn on the heat, if it's dark i'm still going to turn on the lights.

      OK, you're dumb. (Sorry, I had, too).

      It's a simple idea, really. Let's say most people go to bed at around 11:00. At dusk, everyone turns on their house lights. With daylight saving time (DST), dusk is 8:30, so lights are on for 2.5 hours. Without DST, dusk is an hour earlier, so lights are on for 3.5 hours. (What is really happening with DST is that we are sleeping through less daylight in the morning. In the winter there is no daylight to waste in the morning so this doesn't work).

      Having said this, I'm not sure the savings works out as well as the above would suggest. DST means that people like me have to run our AC's an hour longer at the hottest part of the day, wasting more energy than we save. (Presumably, the other place I would spend that time is work, at that will have AC running whether I'm there or not).

    5. Re:Purpose? by broohaha · · Score: 1

      Having said this, I'm not sure the savings works out as well as the above would suggest. DST means that people like me have to run our AC's an hour longer at the hottest part of the day, wasting more energy than we save. (Presumably, the other place I would spend that time is work, at that will have AC running whether I'm there or not).

      This depends on where you live, of course. The new months on which DST will occur under the energy bill will be on the months in which I don't even use an A/C.

    6. Re:Purpose? by guitaristx · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing this a while back on slashdot (ahh, there it is).

      I can't find it in the discussion, but IIRC, the change would make a 1% change in energy consumption.

      --
      I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    7. Re:Purpose? by nasor · · Score: 0

      The web page that you linked to has some pretty serious flaws in its argument for daylight saving time saving energy. First of all, it says:

      "In the average home, 25 percent of all the electricity we use is for lighting and small appliances, such as TVs, VCRs and stereos. "

      Why not just list the percent of electricity that's used for lighting? Why lump in other appliances when there is no clear reason why people would use TV, microwaves, or curling irons less during daylight saving time? Also, what percentage of TOTAL electricity consumption do houses account for? The 25% statistic is meaningless without knowing that. The article goes on to say:

      "Studies done by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time. "

      This is just wacky. How could we reduce the country's electricity use by 1% each day with daylight saving time? There are 365 days in a year, so even if electricity consumption were to drop to zero for a day it would only mean a 0.27% decrease in electricity usage. At first when I read this I thought they meant that electricity consumption drops by 1% when daylight saving time is in effect, but if that's what they meant then why would they use the "EACH DAY" language?

      Wouldn't people use more airconditioning if they're awake during the hot daylight hours?

    8. Re:Purpose? by slutsatchel · · Score: 1

      How about this

      Now it doesn't matter what time it is, and we can save not just energy, but brain cells, creative souls, careers, and lives! (exercise saves lives)

      -- "By the age of 70 they will have spent 7 to 10 years of their lives watching TV." -- The Kaiser Family Foundation

    9. Re:Purpose? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Yes, 1% per day.

      Anyway, not a direct reply to you, more to the grandparent (but what the hell?)

      According to the NIST website, the oil savings for increasing DST by one month is 300,000 barrels per year.

      If I recall correctly, the proposal increases it for three weeks (75%), meaning a savings of 225,000 barrels of oil. At $63 per barrel or so (and we all know that it is high right now), that amounts to a yearly savings of $14,175,000. Now, I mean, if you're going to hand me $14 million dollars, you'll instantly become my best friend in the whole world--but in the scope of a multi-trillion dollar yearly federal budget, it is less than spit in the bucket. $14 million out of ONE trillion dollars is roughly 0.0014%.

      Incidentally, the pay for a congressman in 2004 was $158,100 per year. At 535 Congressmen (435 Congress + 100 Senators, and technically leaders and the speaker get more), if they gave up one month's pay each (hey, they're shifting DST roughly a month right?) it would save $7,048,625 Roughly half. And they just gave themselves a pay hike.

      It's just an example of how simple $14 million is to come up with in the federal budget. I won't even get into pork projects or $75 screws. Anybody claiming this is anything but an extremely minor energy/money savings, or an extremely (extremely!) minor reduction in our "dependance on foreign oil"--that's the phrase of Bush's presidency, yes?--has an agenda.

      I'm curious what Bush's is. That part I haven't quite figured out.

      Since this article is about gadgets getting confused, potentially requiring new ones be purchased if it is that annoying enough, and/or new DST rules being included in things like operating systems, I would wager that the cost of fixing this "problem," to both companies and consumers, is likely far greater than doing nothing.

      Hurray, Congress!

    10. Re:Purpose? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      I haven't had the chance to read the entire article yet, but a quick web search on the author from my previous link led to this PDF document from a study by the State of California back in 2001. This study is filled with many statistical analyses. So, I assume that some of those will help explain the argument. Again, I have NOT read this document yet.

    11. Re:Purpose? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      It says:

      Studies done by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.

      Being that an entire day is about 1/3 of a percent of a year, I don't see how 1/24th of 1/365th could add up to anything measurable. But these are rough, back of the envelope calculations here, I have not done a real study, and no real data was found on the website referenced.

    12. Re:Purpose? by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

      From the link...

      Studies done by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.

      So if we have daylight savings one-hundred eighty days in the year, our energy savings for the entire country will be... 180%! I think this is a great idea!

      --
      ---GEC
      I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
    13. Re:Purpose? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      Turn off my TV? But, I can't! If I don't have the TV on in my house, who will raise my son?

    14. Re:Purpose? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      Try the link in my post here.

    15. Re:Purpose? by nasor · · Score: 1

      This study concludes that normal DST reduces total energy use in california by around 0.21% annually, and that adding in a summer "double daylight saving time" would result in a total annual reduction of 0.33%. I have to question whether such a trivial reduction is worth the hassle.

    16. Re:Purpose? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Aha! There is the fallacy. In my house when I walk into a room, I turn the lights on. Daytime or no. So do (I assume) a lot of people. This is nothing but a red herring to throw off the ignorant public so they don't notice the billions of dollars this bill gives to oil companies. And its working!

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    17. Re:Purpose? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Imagine if it was TWO hours instead of one? Who needs fusion power when you have the power of bad math and misleading statistics?

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    18. Re:Purpose? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      But the idiocy of this is that *households* don't use 100% of the energy in the US. If they did, great, we'd save energy.

      Unfortunately, a great deal of the energy used in this country is at work. The hundreds of thousands of people who work in call centers or cube farms never touch the lights. They are on when they come in, and they are on when they leave. In fact, MANY businesses leave their lights on 24/7. If not all the time, they at least light their buildings 8am-5pm, regardless of how bright outside it is.

      If it's lighter during the day, we won't use our computers any less. Our refrigerators won't run less. We'll still use AC. And our offices will still be lit by banks of fluorescent lights, heated and cooled by poorly balanced HVAC units which are further thrown off by morons with their windows open, and rooms filled by racks of inefficient computers wasting ton of energy in the form of heat.

      If we really want to save energy, let's start by requiring government and military installations to have energy efficient buildings and policies, and enforce national building codes for households and businesses so they are well insulated and energy efficient. Throw in minimum fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles, and THAT would make a difference. This daylight savings extension won't do much to save energy, I'm afraid.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    19. Re:Purpose? by noth(a)nk.you · · Score: 1
      From the linked article:
      "Daylight Saving Time was changed [...] from the last Sunday in April to the first Sunday in April."
      "Adding the entire month of April is estimated to save nationwide about 300,000 barrels of oil each year."
    20. Re:Purpose? by Dawang · · Score: 1

      The vague reference to a Department of Transportation study about the energy-saving benefits of DST can be thrown out at worst, or simply ignored at best.

      I just finished reading Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving about a month before this latest change to the clock settings came around.

      Read that, then come back. DST *is* madness, and really was only brought about by New York business magnates who wanted more entertainment hours in the evening. Bunko about saving energy.

      Ask your parents (if they're old enough) what it was like to grow up in a century where most of the country couldn't agree on what time it was. This book certainly made me give thanks that at least most of the country found a way to agree (save for Indian and Arizona).

    21. Re:Purpose? by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      "How is this going to save energy?"

      It saves energy if, and only if, you get up late enough so that it is already light when DST is in effect. If you get up so early it's dark either way, then it's irrelevant. If you get up when it's light on standard time, and in the dark on DST, then it costs energy, or at best shifts some of the load to the morning hours.

      Now, I suspect that on both coasts they get up late, and go to bed late. There has to be a reason that prime time is from 8 to 11. I get up at 6 AM, so I am in bed by 10 PM, and I haven't seen the last hour of "prime time" since 1990. And here I am in the Peak Buying demographic too.

      Actually, the 10 PM bed time is an improvement. From 1990 to 1995 I got up at 5 AM, and the TV was off by 9 PM.

      When I grew up in the Central time zone, Bed time was 10 PM (once I was in my teens) but Prime time was 7 to 10, which meant I could watch more then than I can now, which is NOT at all what I was expecting at the time. :-)

    22. Re:Purpose? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the US uses about 20,000,000 barrels of oil each day. 300,000 is rather insignificant (only about 20 minutes worth of oil).

    23. Re:Purpose? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Studies done by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.

      Wow, so after three months, we'll have saved nearly 100%! Cool!!

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    24. Re:Purpose? by guitaristx · · Score: 1

      My post (the GP of this one) was supposed to say "<1%" (not just "1%"), but the HTML ate the <. Shoulda used preview!

      --
      I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
  32. extremely bad by crabpeople · · Score: 1

    "''It is unfortunately going to add a little bit of complexity to consumers," said Reid Sullivan, vice president of Panasonic Consumer Electronics Co. ''In some cases, depending on the product, they may have to manually increase or decrease the time.""

    Wholly mother of god....

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  33. What Problem by fastduke · · Score: 1

    My VCR just blinks 12:00 all the time? So what's the problem again?

    --
    Fastduke :0)
    1. Re:What Problem by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      During a certain period of the year the blinking of the 12:00 should be reversed, so its off when it should be on and on when it should be off.

      This is expected to waste huge amounts of energy to implement, which will be profitable to certain businesses who are owned by friends of mister bush.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:What Problem by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1
      My VCR just blinks 12:00 all the time? So what's the problem again?

      Yes, All VCRs are now required to blink 1:00 for 4 weeks a year.

  34. A great big DUH by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course stuff that is hardcoded with the old DST dates is going to have trouble. Yeah, that's a lot of gadgets. What can we do about it though? Most of those gadgets are not upgradable, so you're going to have to change the time on them twice a year now (once they figure out how to turn off the automatic DST updates).

    I wish the president would have had the gumption to just extend Daylight Savings Time to all year long and ditch the date changes entirely. Nearly every device can be configured to ignore DST changes and it would have saved the world a lot of confusion each year.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:A great big DUH by aero6dof · · Score: 1

      Just wait until we get potential accidents due to transportation scheduling - trains, planes (but probably not automobiles)...

    2. Re:A great big DUH by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Of course stuff that is hardcoded with the old DST dates is going to have trouble. Yeah, that's a lot of gadgets. What can we do about it though? Most of those gadgets are not upgradable, so you're going to have to change the time on them twice a year now (once they figure out how to turn off the automatic DST updates).

      I imagine most gadgets have a very simple option to turn off DST, since not every state and/or country observes it.

      Different countries observe DST at different points in time as well.

      It's a problem we've been dealing with for quite awhile and haven't had too many problems other than confusing people that live next to a state that doesn't observe DST.

      But I agree that we should have "permanent DST," of course, people could end up just offsetting that by going to work an hour later. DST is just there to "trick" us into waking up a little earlier in the summer.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:A great big DUH by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Of course stuff that is hardcoded with the old DST dates is going to have trouble"

      Gadgets with clocks are more trouble than they're worth -- most don't account for daylight-savings at all, which means they're just extra things to go around fixing twice per year when the clocks change.

      Some things can't help it (timers, alarms, videos) but if it's a choice between fiddling around every 6 months (hold down the mode and set buttons for 4.3 seconds and press A to change to DST...) and buying something with a radio time receiver, it's not really comparable...

      Coding some simple algorithm for DST isn't much better than making people do it themselves, because it changes so often, and it's only valid for one place. (e.g. you couldn't use it in America, because it would have to know which town and state you're in to know when DST starts, and even those change far too frequently...)

      Really, if a gadget can't get its time from some reliable central source (NTP servers, radio clocks, GPS, mobile phone networks, teletext...) then it shouldn't bother even displaying a clock.

    4. Re:A great big DUH by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      I wish the president would have had the gumption to just extend Daylight Savings Time to all year long and ditch the date changes entirely. Nearly every device can be configured to ignore DST changes and it would have saved the world a lot of confusion each year.

      Until the next time someone decided to change it.

    5. Re:A great big DUH by photon317 · · Score: 1


      The gadgets will be the least of our worries. For a whole lot of computers out there, this will be like a mini-Y2K. The upshot is the error is 1 hour instead of 100 years, but the downside is that virtually all computers that bother to know what a timezone is are affected, as opposed to just systems with sloppy programmers who used 2-year digits.

      Sure, your whole datacenter may be NTP-synced, and therefore your datacenter's UTC time will stay correct, but any application or user asking for the current local time will get a wrong answer during the extension periods, until a system update is applied which updates the daylight savings definitions.

      In the case of a Linux machine, this probably means a glibc update, although I haven't actually gone and looked to be sure who owns the timezone files.

      But there's a lot of unix (and other) machines out there in the world who haven't updated their timezone data in years, and have no plan to. Good luck getting everyone smoothly upgraded before this takes effect.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    6. Re:A great big DUH by photon317 · · Score: 1


      I went and looked at one box here, a SuSE 9.2 one, and it looks like the timezone definitions do ultimately come from the glibc sources, but SuSE has split them off into a seperate rpm package called "timezone".

      I can't wait to see what we're going to do with the unsupported HPUX 10.0 box in the corner that hasn't been patched in years :)

      --
      11*43+456^2
    7. Re:A great big DUH by Phred+T.+Magnificent · · Score: 1

      I wish the president would have had the gumption to just extend Daylight Savings Time to all year long and ditch the date changes entirely. Nearly every device can be configured to ignore DST changes and it would have saved the world a lot of confusion each year.

      I just wish the Congress would have had the gumption to eliminate Daylight Saving Time all year long, and ditch the date changes entirely. Nearly every device can be configured to ignore DST changes, and it would have saved the world (or, at least, the US) a lot of confusion each year.

      The year-round DST thing was attempted during the previous energy crisis. It Didn't Work. It Never Will. Can we quit proposing it already?

      --
      Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
      Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
    8. Re:A great big DUH by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      I imagine most gadgets have a very simple option to turn off DST, since not every state and/or country observes it.

      Yep.

      It's a problem we've been dealing with for quite awhile and haven't had too many problems other than confusing people that live next to a state that doesn't observe DST.

      The problem isn't that one can disable DST switching, but that you are left with manual changes for every device.

      Now, I have a large number of computers at work, most of which have certain tasks that they are expected to perform at a certain time. Which is better: a) the systems know when DST is and switch automatically, or b) I go into work at 2AM on Sunday morning and change all of them one at a time manually?

      I pick (A). After the first switch, I suspect you'd pick A, too. Plus the fact that its not just a 'date' command to move an hour, its a complete change of timezone.

      Oh, I forgot. I also have a dozen or so computers around the planet, some of which are in the US. I'd have to change those at 2AM, too. But that's 2AM on the east coast for east coast systems, 2AM central time, 2AM western, and THEN 2AM pacific.

      And then what happens if I happen to be away from home when the DST changes? I can't reprogram my VCRs from a thousand miles away.

      Ohhh, ntp? NTP operates on GMT. The GMT time isn't changing, only the local time. And not the time, the time ZONE.

      This changing DST nonsense is going to cause headaches to a majority of people for the weeks when it is in effect. Missing appointments/trains/planes/movies/plays, showing up an extra hour early, etc. I can't believe the morons in Congress actually went through with it.

      By the way, I have some idea of what this is going to do. The "freeware" (actually spyware, but disabled) NTP client I have for windows has the WRONG DST switching algorithm. I already have to change zones for each system I run it on four times a year. It is a waste of my time.

    9. Re:A great big DUH by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      I wish the president would have had the gumption to just extend Daylight Savings Time to all year long and ditch the date changes entirely.

      Easy for you Southerners to say, but many of us in the north (particularly toward the western edge of their zones) would prefer it the other way. I'm glad the President doesn't have the gumption to unnecessarily inconvenience much of the population in this way.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    10. Re:A great big DUH by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It's worth nothing that the problems that may be caused by this cannot be reasonably blamed on sloppy programming, because even programmers in the 1960's knew that the year 2000 would happen eventually, whereas nobody really had any warning that the parameters of DST would be changing until very recently.

  35. Update not required by leapis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Computers with Windows operating systems would need to obtain updates.

    This is not accurate. Windows stores time zone information, including DST start and stop times, as human-readable values in the registry. Anybody who has ever used regedit.exe can tweak these values themselves.

    1. Re:Update not required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just what, pray-tell, is supposed to change those registry entries on grandma's computer? A software update, of course.

      So yes it is accurate. It just so happens to be an easy fix.

    2. Re:Update not required by JoeShmoe · · Score: 1

      Wrong. If you check the box, Windows will automatically set your clock ahead one hour or back one hour based on the current pattern of first Sunday in April and last Sunday in October. It won't know to do it the last week in March and the last week in November unless the code is patched.

      I don't know the stats for, I'd imagine a large percentage computers out there are probably running 95, 98, ME or 2000...all of which Microsoft end-of-life'd and will no longer support.

      I stopped using the auto-adjust thing back when dual-booting systems were the norm and each OS wanted to keep knocking another hour of my system clock when I rebooted into it.

      I predict a big rise in popularity of those Internet Time programs, and would not be surprised if Microsoft threw something like that into Vista.

      -JoeShmoe

      --
      -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
    3. Re:Update not required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You don't get it. Grandma can do it herself.

      Idiot.

    4. Re:Update not required by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Anybody who has ever used regedit.exe can tweak these values themselves. That would be, what, about 0.1% of the Windows user base? Repeat after me: "Not everybody in the world is an engineer!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    5. Re:Update not required by GizmoToy · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, you have to update system files in order to get it to work? Nope, that doesn't sound anything like "would need to obtain updates" at all!

      Sorry, just feeling sarcastic... :)

    6. Re:Update not required by JoeShmoe · · Score: 1

      Er, what I meant by wrong is that even if the values are stored in the registry (which freakin nearly everything is anyway), the only way to change it is to modify the registry, i.e. load a .REG file or similar, i.e. a patch.

      "Normal" users aren't even supposed to know what Regedit.exe is, which is why Microsoft hasn't had a shortcut to it since Windows 3.1 or something.

      -JoeShmoe

      --
      -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
    7. Re:Update not required by Nos. · · Score: 1

      "Normal" users aren't even supposed to know what Regedit.exe is, which is why Microsoft hasn't had a shortcut to it since Windows 3.1 or something.
      Of course, there was no registry until 95 so I don't think they had a shortcut to it in 3.1. Of course I don't believe they've ever had a shortcut to regedit in any version by default. You can always create one yourself.

    8. Re:Update not required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft already includes a Network Time Protocol Agent in Windows, it's in XP, and it was in 2000 as well. Probably older systems too, but I don't have any on hand to check just when.

    9. Re:Update not required by Lagged2Death · · Score: 1

      I predict a big rise in popularity of those Internet Time programs, and would not be surprised if Microsoft threw something like that into Vista.

      Actually, Windows XP has internet time-synch built in already. Right-click the system-tray clock, pick "Adjust Date/Time," then check out the "Internet Time" tab.

      Windows NT 4 and Windows 2000 also include internet time-synch services, but require some poking around with the service manager and maybe even the command line to turn them on. They can be tricky to get working properly with a strict packet-filtering type software firewall, though, since Windows runs about 20 zillion processes under the name "services.exe," which you definitely don't want to give blanket firewall permissions to.

    10. Re:Update not required by hesiod · · Score: 1

      YOU don't get it, Grandma WON'T do it. You can't figure that out and you call someone else an idiot? I guess you just proved the recent study results that incompetent people are too stupid to realize they are incompetent.

    11. Re:Update not required by MCZapf · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think Win31 did have a rudimentary registry, used for file associations and such. The rest the registry wasn't there yet. HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT exists today for backwards compatibility, though it's the same as HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes.

    12. Re:Update not required by makomk · · Score: 1

      Er, what I meant by wrong is that even if the values are stored in the registry (which freakin nearly everything is anyway), the only way to change it is to modify the registry, i.e. load a .REG file or similar, i.e. a patch.

      Not exactly true. Windows 98SE has a timezone editor included on the CD-ROM, though it's not part of the Windows install (it's in the Resource Kit Sampler IIRC).

    13. Re:Update not required by karnal · · Score: 1

      The name of the service you're looking for is w32time.

      I happened upon it because I wanted to set up my w2k boxes at home against an internet time server. If you stop the service (net stop w32time), you can configure it using the net time command (google it - my batch script for setting my home pc is at home...) then you net start w32time to get it rolling again. You can set it against an NTP server as well....

      I have recently had trouble with my WindowsXP media box getting the proper time, so I set it against one of the NIST servers.... works like a champ!

      --
      Karnal
    14. Re:Update not required by leapis · · Score: 1

      Let me spell it out, since everyone missed the point of my original post. An update from Microsoft is not necessary to adjust when Windows makes its DST adjustment. While its very likely that they will release a patch for supported systems, all the Windows platforms that have been EOL'd are not going to see this update.

      There are a lot of instructions out there that show even the most novice user how to make a change in the registry, so my point remains that this data is stored in such a way that it can be easily modified. And for those who have a grandma who can't fathom regedit, I'm sure some Windows programmer will throw together a small program to do it for her.

      Either way, my point remains... saying that an Update from Microsoft is necessary is not true. There are several ways to make this change that do not involve Microsoft.

  36. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by rovingeyes · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Stop the apocalypse! Hire me"

    Scare tactics always work in US. Tell them, doom is near and people will do anything, even hire you ;)!

  37. Smart gadgets by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    Some VCR's can set time themselves based on teletext (Ceefax for the brits). Alarm clocks can set themselves based on a radio signal. Anything connected to the net can use NTP (or NET TIME for the 'softies :-) Frankly my life will not come to a halt if my microwave shows the wrong time 3 weeks a year. Next story?

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  38. I don't really think it's that big of a deal by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

    So some devices won't adjust at the right time. So what? Many devices with clocks really don't need them to be THAT accurate.

    Humans can adjust to the difference, or perhaps even MANUALLY change the clocks like we all did 10 years ago, and mostly still do today.

    Will it be an inconvenience? Sure. Will it destroy life as we know it? Probably not.

  39. Daylight Saving...No "S" by chia_monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just to clarify, it's "daylight saving" time...No "s".

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by Malc · · Score: 1

      It seems to be common in American English to pluralise things unnecessaryily, such as the savings on a single purchase, or being off-sides in football (soccer).

    2. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by grunherz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, we 'Mericans make things possessive that aren't either!

      I just went to Target's to git some stuff 'cause Wal-Mart's is too crowded these days.

      Don't even git me started on Sears's!

      --
      Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars ... plus tip.
    3. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by corsec67 · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, you mean "daylight aving"?

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    4. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by chia_monkey · · Score: 1

      "...or being off-sides in football (soccer)."

      Great...now you've got me racking my brain to try and remember what I've said/heard while playing soccer. Have we said "off-sides"? Aye...I won't be getting much work done today.

      You do bring up a good point however. In a joking matter, you may hear "I likes the womens at Club BlahBlah". I can't think of many other specific examples offhand (my brain is still in work-mode...perhaps because I'm at work) but I'd like to see a list of other unnecessary pluralizations.

      --

      "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    5. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by wgaryhas · · Score: 1

      What region of the country do they do that? Never heard anyone speak like that before.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
    6. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By Grabtharr's hammer -- what a savings!!

    7. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we don't say "maths"

    8. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you say "math" as if you have a speech impediment (i.e. lisp). The subject is mathematics, i.e. it's already plural. Therefore the correct abbreviation is maths, not math.

    9. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It seems to be common in American English to pluralise things unnecessaryily

      What about the Europeans who learn maths? Mangling the English language isn't unique to Americans, you know...

    10. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf is daylight aving??

      stoopid n00bie.

    11. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by PrntlUnit27 · · Score: 1

      "Leave off the last 's' for savings!" Sounds like a sale.

    12. Re:Daylight Saving...No "S" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  40. Be good consumers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks, it's time to throw out your old gadgets and buy new ones! The fine people at Stuff Magazine are always trying to get me to update to a cellular phone that can take infra-red photos :)

    "...devices such as VCRs..." now that made me laugh. What's a VCR?

    And for that matter, I'll have to spend another $10 for a genuine ROLodEX watch on the streets of Manhattan to replace my aging timepiece.

    Oh, whatever will we as consumers do?!

  41. I'd like to propose national naptime by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

    cus I get tired in the afternoon

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

    1. Re:I'd like to propose national naptime by Sonri · · Score: 1

      I agree. Goodnight.

    2. Re:I'd like to propose national naptime by killawatt5k · · Score: 1

      Don't they already have that in Mexio? (sorry 'm a stupid American)

  42. There is no problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some US states have no DST, yet these devices work fine in them, why because you can turn off auto-DST and manage time manually.

    1. Re:There is no problem... by MankyD · · Score: 1

      Right... but the problem isn't that you can't do it manually. The problem lies in the fact that all the automatic adjusters became useless and antiquated. And what if people forget to turn them off - or, more likely, forget to turn some of them off, since lots and lots of devices have this feature.

      --
      -dave
      http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
    2. Re:There is no problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some devices which have embedded code which includes timekeeping, have no user interface to allow manual updating of the time. I've worked on two of them. The system is configured using an external PC by a trained tech when it is installed. The end user isn't allowed to play with the system settings. Turning on daylight saving time at a time other than the one built into the software requires an on-site visit from the tech.

    3. Re:There is no problem... by Mark_pdx · · Score: 1


      Don't most VCRs and cellphones get their time from PBS or WWVB anyway?

      If a product was designed to do this with a calendar, instead of a query, well, that's just bad design/planned obsolesence.

    4. Re:There is no problem... by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the other problem with manual DST is if people get it wrong.

      the windows user interface in particular pushes the idea that local time is all important and the timezone is just some internationalisation setting.

      if you have local time right and timezone wrong your computer gets the wrong idea of UTC which is a bad thing for any protocol that bases things like caching on UTC.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    5. Re:There is no problem... by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Just as some VCRs pick up the program information and some don't, some will pick up time from a station (often PBS) and some won't. I don't know if the protocol includes a DST flag or if the unit is supposed to figure out when to switch on its own.

      My ReplayTV doesn't have any option to set the time, only the time zone. Again, I don't know if the time protocol it uses each night when it connects to the server includes a DST flag, nor what it is supposed to do if it doesn't talk to the server on the day before the switch (if it does have a DST-pending flag). All I'll be able to do is change timezones for the three weeks before and 1 week after the automatic switch, if it doesn't compensate properly. It may just be simpler to turn off DST and leave it set to a different timezone for the entire time. I'm not sure if US units will have a way to adjust like that for people already in EST, though - what do you switch it to? I'm also not sure if the schedule info is stored in UCT or "local time" - if in UCT, then I don't have to worry about it not recording the right show, I just get confused by the time displays. I'd guess it stores everything internally by UCT, or it would get very confusing in the fall when the same time repeats itself.

  43. Haw Haw! by I'm+Spartacus! · · Score: 1

    Suckers. We here in the beautiful state of Arizona don't bother to save any daylight.

    Of course, this is mainly because the idea of saving another few more hours of 100+ degrees is none too appealing. But still...

    Haw haw!!!!

    --
    "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
  44. manually? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    FTFA:
    "In some cases, depending on the product, they may have to manually increase or decrease the time."
    Oh no, the horror, the horror.


    Also, the url begins with http://www.boston.com/business/ Sounds like US-business throwing some FUD into the techworld.

  45. Theorhetically yes by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

    By allowing companies to make the most use of daylight hours during which they do not need to light their facilities as much.
    In reality? No clue.

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    1. Re:Theorhetically yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe, but how many offices/business/factories/etc. use natural light anyway? every place i've worked turns the lights on every morning, or there on all night.

  46. not a problem by bobalu · · Score: 1

    If you really want to make sure your program is recorded you sit there and press RECORD. Between changes in schedules, events that go overtime etc. it's not always reliable. If you want that, get a Tivo.

    My watches don't know from DST in the first place. Apparently there are still some benefits of being old-school.

    More importantly, Windows and OSX both get patched so frequently I can't imagine they won't be able to slip the fix in before then.

    --
    The revolution will NOT be televised.
    1. Re:not a problem by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      More importantly, Windows and OSX both get patched so frequently I can't imagine they won't be able to slip the fix in before then.


      But support for Win2K has expired.

      <foilhat>Ah HA! This is Microsoft's doing. Now we HAVE to buy into WinXP.</foilhat>

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    2. Re:not a problem by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      More importantly, Windows and OSX both get patched so frequently ...

      You would be amazed at the number of DOS systems still out in the world doing simple things that still require knowing what time it is. And, or course, the number of Windows systems that don't get patched because installing patches is the number one way to break a working system.

  47. a wash by cratermoon · · Score: 1

    This change is intended to save the country energy (and presumably keep energy costs lower). It's a bit of a stretch to believe it will really have any effect. Gadgets being out of sync and operating systems failing to keep accurate time will be inconvenient at best. By the time we add up the cost of writing, shipping, and installing patches or just compensating for the incorrect times, does anyone really believe we'll end up with a net savings? Won't the programmers and hardware guys who have to work extra hours to develop fixes easily eat up the supposed difference?

    1. Re:a wash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, gee, if we pay to fix all the devices currently in existence once, develop new devices that have the new time schema embedded, and the new system lasts forever, how is it a wash? The initial costs would certainly be covered by accumulated annual savings eventually...

  48. VCR clock by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one whose VCR clock is currently flashing 12:00 anyway?

    --
    Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    1. Re:VCR clock by sbowles · · Score: 1

      You already have a compatible VCR ... No upgrades required!

      --
      You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
    2. Re:VCR clock by makomk · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one whose VCR clock is currently flashing 12:00 anyway?

      Well, I'm using one that sets itself (from the Teletext/Ceefax* - fortunately, the channel that was in a different timezone is no longer available)

      * I'm in the UK. The BBC has Ceefax, the other channels have Teletext. They're exactly the same technology.

    3. Re:VCR clock by fbartho · · Score: 1

      Yes. The flashing interferes with my LED display board indicating the status of my various servers, web apps, portals, web cams, Inboxes, mailboxes, trashcan level meter, powermeter, intruder alarm systems, upstairs parent monitoring services, mini-SAM site, and my few other personal indicators. Therefore I modded my vcr so that it wouldn't flash anymore...

      Actually, that was a long time ago... I think that I took parts from the VCR to make my own homebrew tape Backup mechanism, and the LCD display is actually somewhere in the pile of such displays I'm stocking to make some project... once I figure out what I want. -- Maybe the largest dynamic display of digits of PI.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    4. Re:VCR clock by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      That's what keeps me lazy on the vcr and dvd players, my cable box is set automatically too. I suppose if it didn't have a pvr built into it I'd consider setting the other clocks, but why bother?

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    5. Re:VCR clock by Keeper · · Score: 1

      People still own VCRs?!?

  49. For those who haven't dealt with it before... by tgd · · Score: 1

    It doesn't seem to be universally known that DST rules vary not only across the country but around the world. Starting and stopping times vary by country, and as we all ought to know there are places in the US that don't have it.

    What does that mean?

    This is a non-issue. Most products either don't deal with DST (VCR's, clocks, etc) or are driven by outside signals (automatically set radio clocks, TV clocks, cable boxes, cell phones), are easily updated (all computer software, which already has to ask the OS for the translation).

    It'll be a rare product or a buggy program that is badly affected by the problem. This isn't Y2K all over again. Its a trivial fix for most things and won't even be broken on half the stuff the panic articles about it talk about.

    1. Re:For those who haven't dealt with it before... by jgrahn · · Score: 1
      It doesn't seem to be universally known that DST rules vary not only across the country but around the world. Starting and stopping times vary by country, and as we all ought to know there are places in the US that don't have it. What does that mean? This is a non-issue.

      Yeah. Sweden changed the DST start/end rules back in the 1990s (to conform with the EU, I believe). The only thing I noticed was that my ancient Windows95 installation was an hour off some of the time. I'm sure there was an upgrade available from somewhere, but I never bothered -- my copy of RedHat 4 had the updated rules.

      There was no discussion and no Y2K-style panic before the switch. There were no visible effects after it.

  50. Psychotic Changes. by saintlupus · · Score: 1

    Think this is bad? Wait until he signs the bill to outlaw evolution.

    --saint

    1. Re:Psychotic Changes. by rongage · · Score: 1

      I for one would welcome such a bill. I have always preferred kmail to evolution....

      --
      Ron Gage - Westland, MI
  51. Homer's Insight by woodsrunner · · Score: 2, Funny

    8:59, First time I've ever been early for work. --except for all those daylight savings times, lousy farmers!

  52. Jetlag Dave here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I EVER meet Ben Fucking Franklin, I will kick his ASS!!!

  53. 2K5 bug? by GangstaLean · · Score: 1

    Year 2K Bug - Programming results in 2byte date code, causing chaos when first two digits of year change. Mass blackouts predicted.

    Outcome - Last gasp for COBOL programmers.

    Year 2K5 Bug - Legislation results in 3 week time change, causing chaos in out of sync watches, cell phones and computers. Mass mis-scheduled meetings predicted.

    Outcome - You cut out of work early to play softball in the park. Boss does not notice.

    --
    -- Bird in the Bush: The Renewable Energy Blog http://www.birdinthebush.org
  54. unlike the rest of you... by davidj0228 · · Score: 1

    i think i will enjoy my extra hour of daylight for another 4 weeks a year. I don't give a shit about daylight in the morning, only the daylight remaining after I'm done with work. It's not about energy, its about maximizing useful daylight time for most of the population.

    1. Re:unlike the rest of you... by ender- · · Score: 1

      i think i will enjoy my extra hour of daylight for another 4 weeks a year. I don't give a shit about daylight in the morning, only the daylight remaining after I'm done with work. It's not about energy, its about maximizing useful daylight time for most of the population.

      Then how about you go to bed an hour earlier, then get up an hour earlier, then go to work an hour earlier, then go home an hour earlier. Same daylight savings without the hassle of screwing with the way all our technology deals with time.

      Maybe it's just me, but legislating a technical change to bring about a non-solution to a problem which is really based in peoples laziness just seems like a waste of tax-payer and consumer money. I wouldn't surprised if this was all just a way to get us to be more active in the hottest part of the day in order to maximize our power usage [AC's] to fill the coffers of the Republican's buddy-buddy oil/power companies. I'm fairly sure the increased use of AC during the day will far outweigh the decrease in power used for lighting. [Cold climate areas excepted of course]

      And as for actual energy savings: I go to other peoples houses and constantly see lights left on all DAY, and people falling asleep with the TV on. You want to help save electricity? Buy florescent bulbs, turn out the light when you leave the room, and don't fall asleep with the TV on [they come with timers now you know]. How difficult is all that really?

    2. Re:unlike the rest of you... by runner_one · · Score: 1

      Then how about you go to bed an hour earlier, then get up an hour earlier, then go to work an hour earlier, then go home an hour earlier. Same daylight savings without the hassle of screwing with the way all our technology deals with time.


      People who suggest this course of action fail to realize that most of the working people in the USA don't have that option! They work for a company or employer that has set hours that you must work if you want to keep a job. Although there may be some companies that have flexible hours, most do not. Most people are bound to their employer's schedule. If you work for a company that has an 8-4 schedule (like I do) it is getting dark by the time I arrive home in the winter. Even though I live and a temperate area with mild temperatures for much of the winter I have no time for outdoor activity at all after work for much of the year. This change will add many more outdoor hours to me every year so I am looking forward to it.

  55. Prediction: States Override this foolishness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some states already do not recognize DST. I predict that, in this fit of stupidity about to be signed by Dubya, there will be plenty of fed up people all around America. I don't recall there being any big mandate for it..

    I think there will be many more states that decide that this is just dumb and stupid and either vote to end DST alltogether or just refuse to recognized the modified DST schedule (i.e. keep the status quo).

    Why do we have to listen to the government when it comes to deciding what time of day it is?

  56. what about.... by tobi-wan-kenobi · · Score: 1

    .... that: now that we are at it, let's do the following. abandon all that nonsense SI-stuff, instead, we measure everything - the time, the space, our problems - in 'quicks', where one 'quick' is defined as the movement (or the time) the sun spends for moving around the earth once. since this takes some time, we should further divide it into 'microquicks', which is a 1,024th of a quick and into a myonquick, which is a 1,024th of a microquick. thus, a quick is either the distance or the time the sun spends orbiting around the earth once. in a perfect circle.

    --
    If you don't learn from history,
    then you are an idiot by definition.
    --- Vadim Yasinovsky
  57. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by interiot · · Score: 1

    Slashcode needs to implement a new category, "Super-duper friend" with a +3 bonus, just for people like you.

  58. Just like the good old days... by phpm0nkey · · Score: 1

    At least this will give us all an excuse to show up an hour late for work once a year.

    "But look! My cell phone says it's 8:57! I'm early!"

  59. Obviously a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have we not learnt from Star Trek that messing with time can only have bad results.

  60. What time is it where? by yEvb0 · · Score: 1
    --
    "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
  61. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by pete6677 · · Score: 2, Funny

    For best results, tell them to do it to protect the children from terrorists.

  62. Daylight Saving Time... by HEMI426 · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...Daylight Saving Time, not Daylight Savings Time...

    1. Re:Daylight Saving Time... by saddino · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to Sean Connery, it's "Daylaich Schaving Schtime."

    2. Re:Daylight Saving Time... by VoidWraith · · Score: 1

      How about a hyphen? Doesn't it seem to deserve one? Daylight-Saving Time?

    3. Re:Daylight Saving Time... by HEMI426 · · Score: 1

      Sure, it "seems" to deserve one, but it's already been codified (in to law) without one.

  63. Shouldn't this already be a problem? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    What do these gadgets currently do in Arizona or other places that never go on Daylight Saving Time in the first place? Personally, I think we should just say "screw it" and put everybody everywhere on GMT/UTC/Zulu time. Of course, as it is I still get calls at 4am from people in the GMT time zone that don't appear to be able to handle the concept of subtracting 8 hours from GMT To get PST (or 7 hours to get PDT).

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Shouldn't this already be a problem? by ryanov · · Score: 1

      You can turn it off. Not having it is easy. Moving it is not.

  64. its the economy stupid! by zxnos · · Score: 1

    this is really just a way to give the economy a quick boost. now everyone needs to upgrade all of their gadgets to ones that work with the new time. :P

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  65. Daylight Savings Time.. by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

    I don't see why we even bother..

    Arizona and New Mexico(?) seem to get by just fine without having DST at all. As far as I know, the reason for it was for schools so that kids are going to school in the light or something? But really, does it matter that much? It's just a time adjustment plus or minus one hour... Seriously, why do we bother? Does it really make that much a difference in our lives to change the clock forward or back one hour? I'm all for abolishing DST period, it's silly and unnecessary, let's get rid of it.

    1. Re:Daylight Savings Time.. by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      New Mexico has DST. Arizona is weird, though. The state doesn't have it, but the Navajo reservation which takes up the northeastern corner of the state does. Even more confusing, there is a Hopi reservation entirely inside the Navajo reservation that doesn't, and another tiny Navajo reservation entirely inside the Hopi reservation that does. You could very well have to change your clock seven times just travelling in a straight east-west line across the state.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Daylight Savings Time.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arizona and New Mexico(?) seem to get by just fine without having DST at all.

      That's fine. States can choose to be on DST or not. But IF they choose to be on DST, they must switch to be on DST on the official dates set by Congress.

  66. Surely it can't be that bad... by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

    How many people actually have watches that change there timezones automatically anyway?

    As for OSes, they already have the concept of different time zones having different Summer / Standard time changeover dates. I seem to remember Microsoft once released a tool (in the Windows 95 Kernel Toys) that would let an end user edit there own timezones, it can't be that hard to change them. I guess it'll be more of an issue for people using older unsupported OSe, but you can set the time manually, and disable the automatic changer (if it has one).

    Software errors would be bad programming, assuming one set of time zone changes when there's already different ones in use around the world.

    As for VCRs etc., I'm not so sure. In the UK most modern VCRs set the time automatically from the TV signal (using the clock on the teletext service I guess), so they update whenever the TV stations do. I guess US ones might do it differently, I don't know if the US has any kind of time signal to use. But it can't be that hard to change it manually.

    So it's mostly "you'll actually have to manually change things when the clocks go back / forward", just like people did before things got too clever.

    --
    10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
    20 GOTO 10
    1. Re:Surely it can't be that bad... by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "How many people actually have watches that change there timezones automatically anyway?"

      I just set mine to UTC, and wonder why people lack the ability to add a single digit offset to a time.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Surely it can't be that bad... by Detritus · · Score: 1

      My VCR can set its clock from the television signal. The problem is that it's a manual operation. You have to tune the VCR to a public television station and select the "set time/date" option on the programming menu. That also assumes that the television station has their time server set to the correct time. Some stations let it drift and never bother checking that it is correct.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Surely it can't be that bad... by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      I set mine to GMT (UTC) - for about six months every year. :-)

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
  67. What a bunch of idiots (Congress and the President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a cost to changing daylight savings time across the country. There are also benefits (slightly reduced energy consumption).

    The costs of changing daylight are enourmous. Millions of devices expect DST to start & stop on the current dates.

    And yet, this Congress and President won't increase the minimum vehicle fuel efficiency by 1 MPG, which would cost far, far less, and save far, far more energy.

    What a bunch of idiots.

  68. That's great.... by xpeeblix · · Score: 1

    ..steal the election, invade Iraq on a false premise and now this. Honestly, isn't there anything else for Bush to fuck up before he's gone?

    Too bad we can't have the adulterer back. Heck, I'd even take the funny little Texan....

  69. great now my clock is going to flash 12:00 by netsavior · · Score: 1

    when it should be flashing 1:00, super. but FINALLY we will be able to work in our corn fields longer thanks to a generous concession by the W. who cares about daylight savings? not me, but then again my schedule sucks no matter what time of the year it is.

  70. Convenient Pre Election Move by woodsrunner · · Score: 1

    Tis a convenient pre-election move to put tech people back to work just before the election!

    The energy it will save will be the energy it will take to make the Republican party look good.

    1. Re:Convenient Pre Election Move by cratermoon · · Score: 1

      That's basically my conclusion -- posturing by politicians so they can claim they have an energy policy, when really they're doing whatever the oil and automobile industry lobbyists pay them to do.

  71. MOD PARENT UP by ari_j · · Score: 1

    For a group of people who crucify each other over the correct number of spaces to indent code by, you would think that more attention to detail would be paid when it comes to proper nouns where there actually is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by jdludlow · · Score: 1

      If I had the mod points I'd do it. I'm not sure why this one bothers me so much, but I find it borderline insane that so many people say "Savings" when that is clearly wrong.

      That one and "could care less" really annoy me.

  72. Means more work for on-shore developers - hooray!. by tyroneking · · Score: 1

    Please write to your representative encouraging more of this so we get more work. Examples:
    - Extend every fouth weekend to three days and abolish public holidays instead.
    - Change private sector work hours from 9-5 to 10-6; change public sector hours from 9-5 to 8-4 (so workers in each sector can use the services of he other without taking time off)
    - Rename every 10th day to 'Happy Day' and require that all correspondence sent on that day include a Ren and Stimpy logo
    - Sack all political representatives, replacing them with a HUGE I.T. system that implements e-voting on every issue (think of the computer work this will require!)
    And finally, the most ridiculous of all:
    - Introduce a national ID card scheme
    Hooray! Think of the lovely money! Write it all in Python!

  73. Bush's Prejudice Towards the Nocturnal by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 1

    Its obvious that Bush is trying to screw the Vampires by messing with their work schedule.

    --
    News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
    1. Re:Bush's Prejudice Towards the Nocturnal by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Hey! I resemble that remark!!

  74. Oh noes by shoptroll · · Score: 1

    My Real-Time Clock Game Boy games are doomed!!!

    --
    Insert Sig Here
  75. Minor Pet Peeve by the+phantom · · Score: 1

    Just a minor quibble: it is Daylight Saving Time, not Daylight Savings Time.

    Thank you, that is all.

  76. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by sharkey · · Score: 1

    If your VCR clock is wrong, the terrorists have already won!

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  77. Doesn't go into effect 'til... by swelke · · Score: 1

    Folks, this doesn't go into effect until 2007. Keep your pants on.

    --
    Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
    1. Re:Doesn't go into effect 'til... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that Dubya doesn't start in on the calendar next...

  78. Save even more! by jszep · · Score: 1

    Hey Duhbya, think how much energy you could save if you made daylights savings ALL YEAR LONG!

  79. Has to do with what people can take in by ianscot · · Score: 1
    somehow this is the BIG idea in the energy bill as it is being reported

    Hey, laws on this scale are so massive that you really can't take in the larger sense of them at all. That's how all the pork sneaks in -- in the form of incentives encouraging oil companies to explore deep drilling techniques they would have tried anyway, for one example here -- and Jane Voter can only wonder "How big is so-many billion dollars? Is it more or less than we spend in Iraq in a given week?" The sense of perspective just isn't there.

    (Which is partly how the idea that "the welfare state" is responsible for out-of-control spending can be perpetuated. A sense of proportion about the federal budget would tell you Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" has a lot more to do with that. But I digress.)

    What the media's doing is seizing on a detail that's meaningful for people. We can understand what this one would do. With the larger fiscal and economic consequences, we do have a shocking lack of real public debate about stuff like this bill, but that's because it just doesn't have a clear storyline to it. My VCR won't start screwing up if Exxon gets one more egregious handout.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Has to do with what people can take in by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Maybe the politicians really took The Guide to heart: "The Total Perspective Vortex had proved that in an infinite universe the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion."

      The corollary to this, of course, is that politicians themselves can't be sentient because they do need to have a sense of proportion.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Has to do with what people can take in by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Clearly the only solution is the systematic termination of all politicians.

  80. Insensitive clods!!! by I'm+Spartacus! · · Score: 1

    I only use GMT!

    --
    "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
  81. Coincidence? by b00m3rang · · Score: 1

    Doubtful.

  82. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    Also work in the childhood type 2 diabetes epidemic, the obesity epidemic, child molestors moving into one's neighborhood, drugs invading one's neighborhood (especially meth and meth labs), illegal immigration, hackers, rising gas prices, aggressive drivers, world overpopulation, cell phone cancers, cell phone induced car crashes, rude cell phone users, bad cell phone service, ridiculous cell phone rates and buggy software.

    Have I forgotten anything on the scare and annoyance hit-parade?

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  83. This is nothing more than a plot... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Funny

    clearly the administration is in the thrall of Big Time!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  84. It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Daylight Savings Time is a way for those of us too poor to afford an airplane ticket to be able to experience the joys of jet lag.

    Typical government, they have Datlight Savings in the half of the year that already has plenty of daylight. I'd really like it to not be dark when I get off work between xmas and new years eve.

    But DST in the winter makes too much sense.

    1. Re:It's simple by TurdTapper · · Score: 1

      How do you figure that it makes sense in the winter? At some point, even an hour difference in the winter isn't going to change whether it's dark or not when you leave work.

      --
      A man with a gun is called a citizen. A man without a gun is called a subject.
  85. The gadgets are all confused... by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 2, Funny

    Except for Inspector Gadget, who is on the case.

  86. OH NOES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teh gadgets don't work! OH NOES!
    Get a grip on life.

  87. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by jglen490 · · Score: 1
    For free!!!

    Resetting the time on an electronic device is trivial.

    What matters is the rationale for doing so. Having Time Zones make sense, since we are still creatures of light/dark cycle rhythms. Adjusting that schedule did make sense when agriculture was a major player and may still be needful. But changing the period of DST on the supposed rationale of saving money is pretty much like the supposed "savings" generated by changing a payday from the last day of the month to the first day of the next month -- it works exactly once.

    Same with this really bad idea.

  88. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by Junior+Samples · · Score: 1

    At $250,000 a year, It would be cheaper to buy a new VCR.

  89. incredibly dumb theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    [Removes tin foil hat.]

    What if the whole "this will save power" is just an excuse? Isn't 2007 when we are supposed to be switching to all digital broadcasts and isn't the broadcast flag supposed to be coming out around then (if Congress passes it since its out of the domain of the FCC now)? What is this is all a ploy to irritate people because their VCR's (which they don't use much anyway, anymore) and TV's are out of synch for a few weeks, so they have to go out and buy new equipment? I'm sure most people won't care, but this might be one little more annoyance that would push Joe Q. User to upgrade his equipment, and further lock himself into the media conglomerates will?

    [Puts on tin foil hat.]

  90. Cell phones? by Peyna · · Score: 1

    Don't most cellular phones get their time from the tower they're connected to? So how is this a problem with the phones?

    Also, at least with Sprint, my free calling period depends on the time in the timezone I am in, which is clearly displayed on the front of my phone.

    I also like the line: ''It is unfortunately going to add a little bit of complexity to consumers," said Reid Sullivan, vice president of Panasonic Consumer Electronics Co. ''In some cases, depending on the product, they may have to manually increase or decrease the time."

    You know, my grandparents have a house full of this weird looking machines that require you to manually increase or decrease the time with daylight savings time now. I wonder if the people at Panasonic have ever heard of these devices? Consumers have had them for a long time, and seem to have adapted quite well to adjusting the time on them for DST.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Cell phones? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      My cellular phone maintains its own clock/calendar. It asks me if I want to adjust the time if it detects too large a difference between the clock in the handset and the clock in the base station.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Cell phones? by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      The T-Mobile towers around here don't set the time for some reason. And some other tower(s) I used had the clock set an hour wrong, so I disabled automatic time updating.

  91. Decimal time by Z-MaxX · · Score: 2, Informative
    Surprise!! There is actually such a thing! It's called Decimal Time!

    And I wish the world were so nice that we could all use metric things and other 10-based units to match our number system.

    --
    Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
    1. Re:Decimal time by killawatt5k · · Score: 1

      Props for the Decimal time wiki, but what is even cooler(or Dumber) is internet time developed by swatch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time
      but what would rally be effecient is instead of time zones everyone could set their watch to standard tim(e.g. bassed on the meridian that runs though greenwich,UK, but maybee now have the prime meridian moved so it go over New York City, simply for economic reasons, I mean WTF is in greenwhich Eng anyway)other than a couple of pubs) {note: this isn't flaim bait, I'm just sure NYC is more of and international busines hub than Greenwhich. and FYI I live in Oklahoma City and I couldn't care less of either of those towns! I hope this makes the trains run an time agian! One more thing Metric time was good in therory, but since most calanders revolve around the moon (lunar calanders , eg Jewish, and Muslim? [i think]) or the Sun (what we are currently using in the US) and since their rotations, or revolutions(not respectively)are circular, it makes more sense to use 60 instead of 10. side note: the babalonians used a base 60 number system. think how hard it was for 1st year physics students to memorize 60 different characters. Oh well, babalon will sure be net next 51st state, that is if Ms Cleo didn't lie to me! The french DID come up w/ some pretty good ideas, so what what you say about them around me!

    2. Re:Decimal time by doormat · · Score: 1

      Remember this time people, 80 past 2 on April 47th. It's the dawn of a new enlightenment!

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    3. Re:Decimal time by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Whoever told you that spelling doesn't matter was mistaken.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  92. OB HHG reference by four12 · · Score: 1

    Time is an illusion, at lunchtime doubly so.

  93. The New Y2K by killtherat · · Score: 1

    It's the new Y2K, the hard coded daylight saving times built into our gadgets will cause a global meltdown!!! Nuclear reactors will initiate cooling sequences an hour late!! Food supply chains will be broken!!! There will be mass pandemonium!! Dogs will be sleeping with cats!!!

    Thank god my bomb shelter is still prepped, and that freeze-dried food is still good.

  94. ASFR Successfully Trained Students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ASFR (American Schools For Retards) has successfully trained its mentally challenged students to successfully use doors. Crapby, the Redmond district principal, answered our interviewer's questions.

    Interviewer: So Mr. Crapby, tell us how you managed to accomplish the amazing feat.
    Crapby: It wasn't easy, our students are pretty dumb. The last few months had almost NO success.
    Interviewer: Could you tell us what happened during those last few months?
    Crapby: The retards just kept slamming their bodies into the doors, without stopping. We showed them how to do it over and over, but they just kept slamming into the door!
    Interviewer: So what made this month different?
    Crapby: Well, I finally had an idea to get rid of the doors with the turn handles and replace them with push doors. So the retards could slam into the door and it would open!
    Interviewer: Amazing!! Well we're done interviewing.


    For those of you who don't know what the ASFR does or if it exists we'll tell you!
    The ASFR attempts to educate extremely mentally challenged retards.Their schools exist in Oregon and Washington. To learn more visit their webpage: ASFR Homepage.

  95. Yanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the traditional "never think things through" nature of Americians

  96. Move to Saskatchewan by Daithi_c · · Score: 1

    If DST gets you down, head to Saskatchewan or some of the areas of the U.S.A. which remain on Standard Time all year round.

  97. Scrap it? by Lithgon · · Score: 1

    Why not just scrap daylight saving time altogether?

  98. WTF? The ones who can't handle this are by crovira · · Score: 1

    the "twelve o'clock" flashers. And they don't care enough about the problem anyway.

    The rest will wake up or go to sleep when the TV tell's 'em to.

    This is a non-issue.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  99. It could be worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least Bush isn't renaming a month after himself, and taking an extra day from February to add to it. Well, not yet, anyway.

  100. Why is it so easy? by MikeDawg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it so easy for lawmakers to make a change to the time, yet they can't make the freaking change to the metric system to be like "the rest of the world". I wish we (speaking as an American) would convert to the metric system. Even though it doesn't negate the S.A.E. completely, it will overtime take its place.

    --

    YOU'RE WINNER !
    Another lame blog

    1. Re:Why is it so easy? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      From http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/usmetric.html:

      In 1893, Congress adopted the metric standards, the official meter and kilogram bars supplied by BIPM, as the standards for all measurement in the U.S. This didn't mean that metric units had to be used, but since that time the customary units have been defined officially in terms of metric standards. Currently, the foot is legally defined to be exactly 0.3048 meter and the pound is legally defined to equal exactly 453.59237 grams.

      What more do you need?

      Oh, you want us to use the official system of weights and measure?

      On another tangent, I find it amusing that the English or whatever they are called units have been changed to be in reference to the international standards as well. Actually, I believe that the "English" system does not make internal sense anymore. I think that 5280 * 12 _inches does not equal one mile like it should. Humorous. Didn't a NASA Mars thing crash because of the confusion too?

    2. Re:Why is it so easy? by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, the U.S. adopted the metric system in 1866. (and in 1975... and in 1988...).

    3. Re:Why is it so easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's particularly frustrating the the American "English" units and the British "English" units have diverged -- cause for disappointment everytime I order an American pint of beer. It's just too small.....

    4. Re:Why is it so easy? by nonicenamesleft · · Score: 1

      yet they can't make the freaking change to the metric system

      And then "a Quarter Pounder with Cheese" will officially be "a Royale with cheese".

    5. Re:Why is it so easy? by vosechu · · Score: 1

      If I understand correctly the USA is already metric. We converted in 1975 but it was never really pushed so we still don't use it. Check the link below for dates of adoption.

      http://js082.k12.sd.us/Notes_and_Wrkshts/Metric_Fa ctor-Lable/metric_system_info.htm

    6. Re:Why is it so easy? by Hockney+Twang · · Score: 1

      I can look at a nut on a bolt and say, "That's 3 quarters of an inch wide." I still haven't trained myself to look at a similar nut and think, "That is clearly number 8."

      So what? I should just learn it. I know I should. But that doesn't change the fact that there are millions and millions of guys just like me who haven't learned to think that way and haven't been given any compelling reason to do so.

    7. Re:Why is it so easy? by Council · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I was brought up with an uncanny ability to estimate distances, but only in feet.

      Now I'm studying physics and mathematics, and i spend a lot of time looking at trees and trying to figure out what sort of energy they'd carry as they fell, or similar exercises with cars or taut wires or the moon or whatever. And there's no point even trying to do any of this outside the metric system. So I use it. And very slowly start changing, without any work.

      If you really need it, you'll use it. If you don't, you won't. The world will basically do what it's going to do and it takes an awful lot of force times time to change it. You can, I'm just saying it's either hard or takes a very long time.

      So yes, the world will do as it's going to do, and people who need the metric system will use it, and people will measure things in whatever units are convenient, and you should do whatever you want to do about it all.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    8. Re:Why is it so easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Tarantino didn't quite get it right.

      The Royale isn't the same burger as the Quarter Pounder. It may have the same amount of beef, (I don't know, I've never weighed the thing) but the Royale has tomato on it IIRC, the QP just has ketchup.

      They do actually sell the QP as a QP in most countries in Europe. And I know a lot of other hamburger joints in Europe who sell "120 gram" burgers. Which is pretty much the same weight.

  101. Moral travesty ? by taniwha · · Score: 1
    Honestly I don't understand what you are saying - is it that DST is somehow inherently debauched? people act in not-moral ways because of it? it's not IYHO god's will?

    It's simply a convention that gives most people more daylight time outside of work at some times of the day - I can't see how morality has anything to do with it

  102. Farmers anyone? by RamboIII · · Score: 1
    This "daylight saving" time was invented for farmers to be able to farm and still relate to the rest of the world. Seeing as how this stupid method of keeping "time" is now useless (since there are far fewer farmers in this country these days) it seems like a good idea to conserve energy. I think those who still do farm, can get up when the sun rises still all the same. Besides, we have so many more advanced means to keep up with the world today. Farmers aren't missing anything.

    So really, we could just go with one long continual time string. Don't change it at all. Let's just do away with changing the time all together. I have to disagree with TMM. Some folks would have to work in the dark, on things that would require daylight, like most construction.

    --
    Time is comparison of movement to other movement.
  103. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ah yes. it's great to live in a disposable society isn't it? just chuck the perfectly good unit away and buy a new one! nevermind it will sit in a landfill for the next hundred thousand years, we won't be around to see it!

  104. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1

    who would have thunk that ?

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  105. DST should ALWAYS be configurable by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    I've worked on a number of embedded systems, and we've always made daylight savings an adjustable feature. After all, it varies by country (or even region) and can be changed by government mandate. And furthermore, the US has changed the definition less than 20 years ago. There is precedent for this. There really is no excuse to hard code DST.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
    1. Re:DST should ALWAYS be configurable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is much funnier if you replace your DST references to Freedom references. .. and we've always made FREEDOM an adjustable feature. After all, it varies by country (or even region) and can be changed by government mandate. And furthermore, the US has changed the definition less than 20 years ago. There is precedent for this. There really is no excuse to hard code FREEDOM.

      Land of the Greed
      Home of the Slave

  106. Need to watch less TV by harvey_peterson · · Score: 0

    I've enjoyed listening to the talking heads on TV compare this to Y2k. The final comment is always some form of: "And look at Y2k... nothing happened there".

    As if the problem just naturally solved itself.

  107. Ack! by jambarama · · Score: 1

    Oh no! Y2K all over again! *Dons tin-foil hat*. The internet will evolve into a super intelligent virtual being weilding the massive power of unpatched systems, PDA's, Tivo's, Microwaves, Blenders and DVD players.

    But only for 1 week a year.

  108. Not worth it by linuxcoder · · Score: 1

    Either leave things alone or get rid of it completely. The money saved won't be worth the time and cost it takes to implement the changes.

  109. Solution: Move to AZ by cjmnews · · Score: 2, Informative

    In AZ we don't observe the current daylight savings time, so I expect we'll ignore the new one too. So my gadgets and gizmos will all continue to work, ignoring DST as usual. I'm sure there are other places that ignore DST too, feel free to move there if AZ get full.

    --
    You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
  110. This just in by Kagura · · Score: 1

    Machines with incorrect daylight savings programming will display incorrent daylight savings time! Story at 11, movie at 12

  111. I don't know about trains by FlightTest · · Score: 1
    But planes won't be affected. Air traffic control is not time-based, it's position-based. Also, the time base for aviation is GMT ("Zulu") because of the potential to cross time zones, uneven application of DST, etc. It may result in a few people missing their flights the first year the time change is on a different day, but certainly no accidents.


    I suspect trains are done in much the same way. Logically, it would seem they would almost have to be to account for delays, etc.


    --
    Merde, il pleut encore!
    1. Re:I don't know about trains by aero6dof · · Score: 1

      For core ATC systems I'm fairly sure you're right, but are you sure the entire system is GMT and that all the safety related checks are on GMT? The problem is holes in the system. Some "non-critical" compoent of the system which translates from GMT to local time and back, or human beings used to the 5:00pm train coming in on track 8.

    2. Re:I don't know about trains by FlightTest · · Score: 1
      ATC does not deal in local time at all. Period. Theoretically, even student pilots file their flight plans with departure time in Zulu. (Will flight service accept flight plans if you specify "local" time? Yes, but they convert it to Zulu when they enter it into the system, and it doesn't actually get opened until the pilot calls up and opens it) Virtually nothing in the ATC system is automated at all, certainly nothing having to do with the actual movement of aircraft. The FAA's idea of "automated" is a recording for weathing information.


      The only "automated" safety checks I know of are distance and position related, not time. The most common is when aircraft on instrument flight plans vary too much in altitude (+/- 300'), or when a controller lets two aircraft on instrument flight plans get too close together (seperation criteria varies by phase of flight). In these cases, a snitch program will alert the controller as to the problem. The vast majority of "safety checks" are built on procedures. "I'm [at the outer marker | on base leg] so I do my gear check here" type of check.


      Again, I don't know trains. Stepping on the tracks in front of on oncomming train is a human factors problem, not really related to time.


      --
      Merde, il pleut encore!
  112. Could this be tied to the Broadcast Flag? by kisea · · Score: 1

    Not trying to alarm people, but doesn't it seem odd. What does most people do if something doesn't work correctly? They go buy a new one. If their VCR or DVR fails to record their favorite show because the time is off, a lot of people will simply buy a new one after resetting the time becomes a 'hastle'. Then the new VCR, DVR or whatever, assuming that congress eventually rams through the broadcast flag, will abide by this. Out with the old, in with the new....

  113. Thanks, Dickhead Bush. by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    DST doesn't even need to exist... now the dipshit is signing stuff that will change it.

    Great! Um, can we get a fucking president that's not a complete dipshit, please?

    Jesus fucking christ.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    1. Re:Thanks, Dickhead Bush. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right.....

      Beacuse there weren't any US senators that voted for this....

      Because there weren't any US congressment that voted for this....

      Right... Blame the president. It's all his fault.....

    2. Re:Thanks, Dickhead Bush. by StringBlade · · Score: 1
      Well he did have the power to veto such a silly measure, but he really doesn't have many/any critical thinking skills, nor would he want to go against his base in Congress.

      Besides, using the Big Blue Pen to mark an 'X' in the signature spot is fun!

      --
      ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    3. Re:Thanks, Dickhead Bush. by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Every country gets the president it deserves.

      So.

      STFU

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    4. Re:Thanks, Dickhead Bush. by StringBlade · · Score: 1
      Perhaps, but does that mean those that disagree with the president don't deserve any acknowledgement for being in the minority of thinking persons?

      I don't know about you, but if you're in the minority and you want something to change you either have to work to change the majority or change yourself (including leaving). Sometimes the latter is not an option and the former takes a long time.

      Condemning the entire populous for the actions of the ruling majority is prejudicial, sterotypical, and childish. I know plenty of people here who fit that description when they talk about other nations of the world (or the rest of the world at large) and I think of them as equally idiotic as those who comment as you do.

      --
      ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    5. Re:Thanks, Dickhead Bush. by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Do not worry... [My we country]/[We] also [has]/[have] the president [it]/[we] [deserves]/[deserve].

      I am from Mexico and our fucking retard president Fox which is Bush's lame-huevos is not good at all. As you said, I voted with my feet, and now I am far faaar away from him, until next elections, lets see what we can do.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  114. OT: sig... by shmlco · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It is as impossible to steal "intellectual property" as it is to steal fire.

    And it's equally possible to extinguish both...

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    1. Re:OT: sig... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1
      And it's equally possible to extinguish both...

      One can only hope...

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    2. Re:OT: sig... by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      No it isn't -- fire can't propagate spherically in a completely empty vacuum at the speed of light :)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    3. Re:OT: sig... by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      It is as impossible to steal "intellectual property" as it is to steal fire.

      And it's equally possible to extinguish both...


      Good luck extinguishing the Sun.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    4. Re:OT: sig... by visgoth · · Score: 1

      The sun is more than just a very energetic oxidization reaction. Go read about nuclear fusion.

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    5. Re:OT: sig... by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      Sure it can. It may be a very very very low density fire, but it would still be fire.

      --
      Sig
    6. Re:OT: sig... by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      The sun is more than just a very energetic oxidization reaction. Go read about nuclear fusion.

      I don't need to go read anything, it was a joke. Jeez, lighten up already.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
  115. But the cows still get up when they do. by crovira · · Score: 1

    And they don'ty listen to any arguments, pro or con. Maybe we should listen to the cows and not Bush.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  116. This is more that it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What better way to spur the economy than get people out there buying new gizmos because the old ones don't work properly anymore. I bet the government took this into account along with the energy savings.

  117. possible problems with past records by wotevah · · Score: 1

    After the DST change, how will accounting records for the past years be handled ? The OS or software will have to remember the DST rules both before and after the cut-off, to do date conversions in a meaningful way.

    If the machine has been keeping GMT records (as it should most of the time), then viewing old records would show an incorrect time on some of them, if this is not taken into account.

    If it kept local times, then the interval calculations will be off (I imagine those require conversion to GMT to make any sense).

  118. I for one.. by modi123 · · Score: 1

    ... will welcome our 'Smart Gadget' overlords.. I pray they rule us more efficiently than their lesser, more confused brethren..

    1. Re:I for one.. by modi123 · · Score: 1
      For those who didn't read into this worn out joke, there is indeed a technology indictment for once. Letting technology dominate us at such a level people are freaking out over *little things* like time changes and what not...

      so mod it up?! :)

  119. The only other solution... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And what exactly is wrong with this other solution? We shoudln't change the definition of the gallon to make our cars appear more fuel efficient and similarly we shouldn't change the definition of the time to give the illusion that we can have more time for barbecuing. We can have more time for barbecuing by going to work earlier and coming home earlier. Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:The only other solution... by taniwha · · Score: 1
      well then - lets do the alternative - in the summer we'll pass a law to move the starting hours for all work/school forward an hour - you'll still have to change the alarm clock - but instead of the time it will be the alarm settings. The downside of course is that all offices/buildings/stores etc will have to post two sets of open hours on the door summer and winter, TV will have to have different schedules, etc etc

      Personally I'd like to see permanent daylight time (or early work hours, doesn't matter)

    2. Re:The only other solution... by saider · · Score: 1

      We can have more time for barbecuing by going to work earlier and coming home earlier.

      Not everybody has the option to change their schedule. Voluntary changes will also mean a little chaos as you need to remember who's on which schedule. And finally, changing hours would cause a boom in the printing business as companies changed their hours of operation twice a year.

      If you are going to have a change, better to have to government coordinate it.

      Another way to think of it is you are free to observe whatever time zone you want. You don't _have_ to live on government standard time. After all, the airlines run on GMT.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    3. Re:The only other solution... by Renesis · · Score: 1

      Which gallon are we talking about?

      Small gallon (US) or big gallon (UK)?

    4. Re:The only other solution... by defaria · · Score: 1

      You mean DST is not voluntary?!? They'll have to pry my watch off my cold dead arm! :-) Yes leave it to government - they never screw up anything!

    5. Re:The only other solution... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      lets do the alternative - in the summer we'll pass a law /blockquote? I'm not sure where the law comes in. Maybe for public schools and government offices you'd need laws, but not for anyone else.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  120. This is why I prefer sundials by ewg · · Score: 1

    This is why I prefer sundials: no battery to run down, no time zone to adjust, no firmware to upgrade, perfectly accurate.

    Doesn't work at night, but that's only a couple of hours. (With apologies to /Seinfeld/.)

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
    1. Re:This is why I prefer sundials by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well good luck with that plan. If Bush has his way, that's going to be F**Ked up as well.

      http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05210/545823.stm

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  121. Freemasons, Illuminati, and the True Origin of DST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if anybody who reads Slashdot has ever taken the time to read a real history book and learn the true reasons behind the creation of Daylight Savings Time? The Freemasons and Illuminati are a group determined to get world domination and they are based in Sweden. Back in the early 1500s they managed to dupe many prominent American founding fathers such as Ben Franklin and Kurt Russell into believing this idea about "conserving daylight."

    The original plan was that this would give farmers more time to plant their crops. (The justification today is that we will consume less energy, but this was the year 1500 and electricity had not been invented yet.) But even the farmer idea is silly .. moving the clock back one hour is not going to generate any extra daylight! Farmers always get up at the beginning of daylight anyway, which is when the cock crows.

    The true story is horrid. It's dark and scary. The idea was to get the American people to slowly and gradually begin to accept the idea that time is not absolute. First, they were able to get people to screw around with their clocks twice a year. Now, they've managed to convince us to change when we do that. Eventually, the Freemasons and Illuminati hope to get us confused to the point where everybody believes that every day is February 2nd -- Groundhog Day.

    Since one of the popular activities on Groundhog Day is planting trees, people will stay home from work and plant trees instead of going to the office and being productive. And since they will have tricked us into thinking that every day is Groundhog Day, planting trees is all that we'll be doing, day in and day out! Since people will stop going to work entirely, our economy will soon crumble. Not only that, but with all of those trees planted, sunlight will stop hitting the ground here and will cause all of our crops to die, starving the whole country en masse. Then the New World Order will be upon us and the Hindu god Kali-Mah will take over.

    This is their true agenda, world domination and the destruction of America, Daylight Savings Time is their vehicle for this agenda and I encourage you to vote no on this bill and this is a run-on sentence.

  122. Those of us by SupahVee · · Score: 1

    In arizona, laugh at the rest of the country, twice a year, now we just have to do it a bit later and earlier than usual.

    --
    "See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
  123. Hating On The Gadgets by Lagged2Death · · Score: 1

    There are an awful lot of gadgets - like my digital thermostat, my microwave oven, my electronic kitchen timer, my cable box, or my cell phone - which incorporate clocks to no obvious purpose.

    These clocks become one more thing to futz with when DST comes or goes, when the power fails, or when batteries die. When I want to know what time it is, I generally look at my watch, partly because I can't trust all the myriad clock-gadgets to have the right time all the time.

    I'd really dig it if gadget-designers stopped throwing a poorly-designed, hard-to-set digital clock into everything they made. Some gadgets (like a camera or a PDA) have a legit purpose for including a clock, but usually it's just a bullet point for the box.

    1. Re:Hating On The Gadgets by bloodmusic · · Score: 1

      Your thermostat? Does it possibly allow temperature changes by time (5 degrees warmer while you're at work, then cool the place off before you get home)?

      The microwave oven? I'm fairly certain that your microwave oven allows you to set a start time; this would require a clock.

      Cell phone? Probably to let you see what rate period you're in, given that the provider's time and your watch may differ.

      Kitchen timer? Does your kitchen timer have the ability to act as an alarm clock?

      Cable box? Don't know. Maybe to provide contrast with the blinking 12:00 on most people's VCRs.

      A lot of what we do in our lives is time based, and in order for devices to automate those actions, they have to have clocks.

      Your kitchen timer? Not sure about that one.

    2. Re:Hating On The Gadgets by bloodmusic · · Score: 1

      Please strike that last sentence, since I obviously forgot to.

    3. Re:Hating On The Gadgets by Lagged2Death · · Score: 1

      Your thermostat? Does it possibly allow temperature changes by time...

      Nope. It doesn't do anything like that. There are just some extra segments on the LCD, so someone figured, "Hey, throw a clock on there!"

      The microwave oven? I'm fairly certain that your microwave oven allows you to set a start time; this would require a clock.

      I'm not so sure it can. It's certainly true that it's not at all obvious how to do such a thing, from looking at the front panel. I've never wanted to do a thing like that anyway - microwaves are all about immediacy, after all.

      Cell phone? Probably to let you see what rate period you're in...

      It would be way more useful to just show the current rate, rather than expecting me to memorize the rate schedule.

      Kitchen timer? Does your kitchen timer have the ability to act as an alarm clock?

      Probably. I've never used it that way. I already have an alarm clock and a watch with an alarm.

      A lot of what we do in our lives is time based, and in order for devices to automate those actions, they have to have clocks.

      Sure, but these devices are often hard-to-set, hard-to-read, or both. That is to say, they're lousy clocks. They can't really replace purpose-made clocks, so I'll have to have some of those, too. They don't make my life any easier - I can't get away with glancing at the microwave to find out the time, for example, because I can't trust it to have the correct time. They actually make my life very slightly harder, because I have more clocks to maintain.

    4. Re:Hating On The Gadgets by bloodmusic · · Score: 1

      I'll absolutely agree that they can be lousy clocks (except the cell phone, which should not require setting and should at least be accurate). The thing is, their purpose is not to be clocks; they just need the time to serve one of their functions (with the exception of the thermostat, which I imagine shares hardware/firmware with a model that is time-programmable). It would be nice to at least be able to set their primary display mode to something more useful - temperature, channel, blank even. That said, if you consider them to be bad clocks, why not just ignore them, or consider the time displayed a convenient approximation until you can get the accurate time from one of your purpose-made clocks? Just a thought.

    5. Re:Hating On The Gadgets by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 1

      It would be way more useful to just show the current rate, rather than expecting me to memorize the rate schedule

      Are you seriously complaining about the fact that your cell phone has a built-in clock? That fact makes cell phones much more useful, since I no longer have to wear a watch, and I always know what time it is (since I always have my phone on me).

      What possible reason could you have to want to get rid of the clock? It's not like it impairs you in any way - if you don't want to use it, ignore it. (also, they're usually set from the tower, so this DST issue is a non-issue for them anyway).

  124. So my VCR will start flashing 11:00? by mmell · · Score: 1
    It's so irritating that it always flashes 12:00!

  125. Re:Freemasons, Illuminati, and the True Origin of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD PARENT UP!!!

    He's onto something, he's gotta be.

  126. Disposable prodcuts are inexpensive products by I'm+Spartacus! · · Score: 1

    If you want products that will last forever, be prepared to pay out the nose for them. If you only buy one VCR in your life, it might cost you $1000 or more.

    Not to mention that technology moves so fast nowadays that investing in anything that isn't "disposable" carries a boatload of risk.

    No thanks. I'll take cheap, disposable items any day.

    --
    "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
  127. Windows, tho by j!mmy+v. · · Score: 1

    Yes, but how will this break Windows?

    --
    -- often wrong; never in doubt
    1. Re:Windows, tho by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      It won't affect Windows. It's broken without any DST changes.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  128. I operate in Unix time ..see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's more efficient to operate in unix time and less subject to time standards being changed ..

    I was born on 216302400 (give or take). ..hope to make it past 2147483647 though.

  129. Can we rebel? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Maybe I just take things too seriously, but can we rebel against this? Seriously: I think I will observe the standard international time, and just see what happens. Yes, I'll need to take it into account while shopping. Oh, and I'll use more energy than everyone else. :-) Seriously, did the American people want this?

  130. base-60 and metric-60=we have metric time (almost) by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    And while on the topic... who thought up this crazy 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day.
    We need metric time damn it!


    Metric-60 is the answer my friend. :-)

    We Just need to switch from base-10 to sexagesimal (base-60). Degrees, minutes, seconds (angle) and minutes/seconds (time) will already be set. Just start using 60 hours in a day instead of the archaic 24-hours we're used to, and switch all the other units to base-60 as well, and everything will be hunkydory.

    Oh, and dump daylight savings time too. It's even more annoying than base-10. Of course, some people will need to grow an extra fifty fingers to keep count in base-60, but I look at that as more of a challenge in bio and genetic engineering than a "problem" per se. :-)

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  131. PI is exactly 3! by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

    They should have made Pi exactly 3. This will reduce the need for calculators and save power.

    The next stimulus bill should extend the year by a few months. With the addition of Georguary and Rumsvember everyone's yearly income will increase and make us all richer and stimulating the economy. No ones tried this before right.

    We can also redefine the mile in the next NASA spending bill and bring mars close enough to the earth to reach with the shuttle, saving billions.

    1. Re:PI is exactly 3! by no_pets · · Score: 1, Funny

      My calculator is solar powered. Thus, changing Pi to 3 would indeed save daylight as well.

      --
      "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
  132. [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Your UID is leet for the "screaming fish" that first-year Latin students know so well! I'm jealous. A-EEE!

  133. What about saving energy? by CokeDog · · Score: 1

    What I don't get is why doesn't anybody realize that this could save energy? I'm not sure how important the environment is to people on Slashdot, but if there's a way to reduce energy consumption, shouldn't it be done, even if it takes a little while to work out the bugs? After all, a saving only a little annually would compound, and after 10 or 20 years, we'd be much better off. If daylight savings time is changed to be more in-line with the sun, all of you (who live in the US anyway) would have much lower electric bills, since you'd turn off your lights earlier.

    It's obvious that we're never going to get everybody to recycle, so this seems like the logical thing to do. It forces people to save energy on a larger scale.

    1. Re:What about saving energy? by PyroX_Pro · · Score: 1

      Forces? If this goes through I vow to leave every last light and TV/Computer on in my house during these extra weeks. I won't stop there, I will open all the windows and turn the A/C all the way up while I go to work. Finally, I'll set the toilet to run non-stop and turn on all the sinks and tubs. That'll teach these, these, um, time-assassins, to mess with my schedule! Suck on that! Now please excuse me while I go to the store in my SUV to buy tripple ply toilet paper and 10,000 styrofoam cups.

  134. Isn't this a direct steal off the CNN article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject says it all.

  135. Giant media conspiracy by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    This is all part of a giant media conspiracy. By the time the new TVs, VCRs, and PVRs that compensate for the new DST schedule come out, they will all be so encumbered with oppressive DRM that you won't be able to record a program to watch later while skipping commercials if your life depended on it.

  136. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by lgw · · Score: 1

    Daylight savings time *never did* make sense for agriculture. You can't set the cows back an hour.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  137. This shouldn't be a problem for cell phones by bsquizzato · · Score: 1

    Most cell phones these days have the capability for upgrading firmware, which you could either download over the wireless or take into your wireless carrier's nearest store and have them do it for you there. I'm sure all cell phone companies will come out with updates for the phones that automatically adjust time for daylight savings.

  138. Update - bill has been signed by CrimeDoggy · · Score: 1

    As most probably already know, the bill has been signed and is now law.

  139. Let's Y2K ourselves by rnturn · · Score: 1

    At least when Y2K came along, not everything needed to be fixed or replaced.

    This will affect nearly all computer systems in some way -- either a BIOS change, OS patch, or the like -- and many consumer electronics devices will be essentially broken. (I've been putting off replacing some of the stuff but now may have to in order to get the clock to work correctly.)

    And we're doing this to ourselves for some dubious energy savings that would be dwarfed by any serious effort to save energy (like tightening the CAFE standards, promoting hybrid vehicles, etc.) Just another half-baked idea born of, perhaps, five minutes of debate in the Congressional halls^Wmen's room.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  140. cell phones not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cell phones already get firmware updates over the air, a new one with the new DST info would not be difficult.

  141. what! by fbartho · · Score: 1

    What???! Your microwave isn't connected to the internet? What's wrong with you? Time to climb out of the stone age my dear friend... You'll see that we have learned wonderous things in this Brave New World...

    --
    Gravity Sucks
  142. see "fuck, my watch" 2 weeks ago by Thaelon · · Score: 1

    fuck, my watch and children. (Note the comma! (I don't have children anyway))

    --

    Question everything

  143. Worthless Article. by Vorondil28 · · Score: 1

    Summary:

    VCRs and DVD recorders have built in calenders that will have to be overridden by users who have no idea what they're doing. Confusion ensues. Computers can be patched. Oh yeah, and that one Y2K thing; that was funny.
    The end.


    Someone please, tell me somthing I don't know.

    --
    This sig rocks the casbah.
  144. Conservation is stupid by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful
    we can't get our President to even mention the word conservation

    That's not true. The president talks about conservation a lot. But...

    Conservation is stupid. Conservation is simply artificially impoverishing yourself. There's no benefit.

    You're saying:

    I want to accomplish X. It would improve my life to accomplish X. I can afford to buy the energy to accomplish X. Spending the money and using the energy and accomplishing X would be better for me than not doing that.
    But I'm going to conserve the energy, forgo the accomplishment, and give up all the benefits.

    Why? For future generations? So they can grow up and not be able to accomplish their goals because they have to conserve too?

    What's the conservation endgame?
    1. Re:Conservation is stupid by heffrey · · Score: 1

      What's the conservation endgame?

      You starving to death and leaving valuable oxygen supplies for people with brains.

    2. Re:Conservation is stupid by Clod9 · · Score: 1
      The conservation endgame is my kids get to live.
      The alternative is that they die, choking on my offal.

      OK, I know it isn't MY kids; I happen to live in the northwest USA in 2005, and the endgame isn't going to hit here for a few generations...but it's hitting others now, and will reach us eventually. Do I want to speed up this process, or slow it down? Am I a bacterium, that I would blindly eat my way through my environment without considering the future?

      It comes down to simple choices. Should I drive a car? What kind of car should I drive? How far should I live from my work? What kind of work should I do? I live among self-interested dolts who know nothing of science or history, and can't (won't) see the brick wall that they are already crashing into.

      Are you one of them?

    3. Re:Conservation is stupid by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The conservation endgame is my kids get to live.

      How's that? Are resources finite or not?

      You seem to believe in some kind of fantastic environmental doomsday. Furthermore, you believe conservation postpones that day. And you want current generations to artificially impoverish themselves to put that doomsday off a little while.

      How is that an endgame? Doomsday still comes in the best case of the future you forsee.

      it's hitting others now

      Examples?

      --

      Optimistic technological progress is the solution.

      Conservation solves nothing -- it isn't designed to.

    4. Re: Conservation is stupid by mopslik · · Score: 1

      For future generations? So they can grow up and not be able to accomplish their goals because they have to conserve too?

      Under conservation, future generations will be able to grow up.

    5. Re: Conservation is stupid by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Under conservation, future generations will be able to grow up.

      But not very many generations. And not very well.

    6. Re:Conservation is stupid by bizitch · · Score: 1

      Agreed - and thank you for that breath of non-communist agitprop fresh air.

      While it may be true that resources can run out - they typically won't be replaced with anything until there is an actual shortage.

      In other words - as we truly run out of something (as opposed to an artificial shortage) market forces cause the invention/adaptation of new technologies or resources. (i.e. whale oil replaced with kerosene)

      Conservation prolongs the inevitable - but it doesn't prevent anything - and therefore is pointless

      (let the flameware begin ...)

      --
      ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
    7. Re:Conservation is stupid by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What in the world are you talking about?

      It would improve my life to get from point A to point B. I can do so in an SUV, or I can do so in a car that uses half as much gasoline. Conservation is to use the least amount of resources to accomplish the same goal. Conservation is not the opposite of need, but the opposite of waste.

    8. Re:Conservation is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You starving to death and leaving valuable oxygen supplies for people with brains.
       
      Why are the hippies always the first to wish death on someone?

    9. Re:Conservation is stupid by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Conservation is stupid. Conservation is simply artificially impoverishing yourself. There's no benefit.

      You're saying:

              I want to accomplish X. It would improve my life to accomplish X. I can afford to buy the energy to accomplish X. Spending the money and using the energy and accomplishing X would be better for me than not doing that.

      Actually no.

      The problem with capitalism is is bases costs on the human labour directly required, not on the full costs encountered. As a result indirect costs like the cost of damaging the environment are left out of the equation.

      For example consider X = "robbing houses".

      For your first test say you do want to accomplish X.
      You're improving your material wealth so it certainly passes the second test as well.
      It costs almost nothing to rob a house so there goes the third test.
      Therefore by your rules you've justified robbery.

      For a more pertinant and nuanced example say you're driving your car, it costs $0.80/litre (don't know what it is in American), say you would be willing to pay as much as $1.00/litre for this gas so feel this is justified.

      The problem is the pollutants that are released from you burning that gas actually cost $0.30/litre in increased health care costs, damage to the environment, and dozens of other side effects.

      The problem is there's no easy way to come up with a figure like $0.30/litre that covers all the costs for the different side effects (which is why I had to make that figure up) so you can't always accuratly tax people to make up the proper difference (equivalent to robbery being illegal), nor do powerful industries like oil take kindly to taxes (though they are taxed plenty). Instead you need to encourage conservation. There are many things that can profit the individual but are disasterous for the whole, pollution is one of them, as a result I hope you consider conserving when you can and save all of us some money.
      --
      I stole this Sig
    10. Re:Conservation is stupid by srleffler · · Score: 1

      And postponing Doomsday is bad why, exactly?

    11. Re:Conservation is stupid by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It would improve my life to get from point A to point B. I can do so in an SUV, or I can do so in a car that uses half as much gasoline. Conservation is to use the least amount of resources to accomplish the same goal. Conservation is not the opposite of need, but the opposite of waste.

      Say I have a choice. I can spend $1 to get something, or I can spend $2. What choice will I make? Why?

      Obviously, the person that decided to use the SUV did it for a reason. They decided that they'd be better off using the SUV rather than the small car, even though it costs more for the gas in the SUV. That person must get a benefit above and beyond the additional price of the gas, otherwise, they would have chosen differently.

      You're telling that person to forgo that extra benefit that the SUV provides. Why? To conserve the gas. But the benefit outweighs the cost of the gas. So the person is worse off (poorer) for having conserved the gas.

      That's conservation.

    12. Re:Conservation is stupid by Kohath · · Score: 1

      And postponing Doomsday is bad why, exactly?

      Because conservation make progress more difficult, and progress avoids doomsday altogether.

    13. Re:Conservation is stupid by douceur · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is it's so selfish. It might be to my benefit to kill you and take all your possessions, yet I'm not going to do it, because I actually care about people other than myself. And I'm worse off for having "conserved" your life.

    14. Re:Conservation is stupid by RabidMonkey · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but thats just a short sighted, trollish comment.

      Are you saying that you'd rather pay $X for a lightbulb, and $Y/hour to use it, when you can get the exact same amount of light for $X and pay $Y-50% to run the bulb? You get the same end result, but save boat loads of energy. Thats conservation on the easy level. Ditto using say, a toaster, instead of turning on the oven to make your breakfast. Or getting a diesel powered car ... the end result is exactly the same, the method of doing it is almost exactly the same, you simply use less energy along the way.

      We're not talking about you having to install a windmill and ride to work ... but if everyone cut their energy use by 10% (EASY! to do) there would be billions of dollars saved, and much less environmental damage.

      But people like you are going to ruin it for the rest of us. You're content to idle in your SUV, blast your AC, leave all your lights on, throw away all your recycleables (yes, thats conservation as well), and generally pollute the world until it's useless to other people.

      YOU are the problem and YOU are the reason we're having these discussions. If my parents generation wasn't so obnoxious about energy use and was a little nicer to the environment, we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in now.

      Look - no ones asking you to pocket mulch. Just turn off you lights when you're not home. Unless you go offroading every day, turf the SUV for something smaller. Aim for the blue box instead of the black one. These aren't difficult things for your life. So pull your arrogent head out of your ass and realize that you're part of a group of people ... if everyone thinks like you, we are doomed.

      So grow up, and play nice.

      --
      We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
    15. Re:Conservation is stupid by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is it's so selfish. It might be to my benefit to kill you and take all your possessions, yet I'm not going to do it, because I actually care about people other than myself. And I'm worse off for having "conserved" your life.

      You could also kill yourself to conserve the resources you'd otherwise use. Are you too selfish to do that?

    16. Re:Conservation is stupid by douceur · · Score: 1

      Oh, of course! How could I have not seen it before?! All this time that I've been driving cars with great gas mileage, I've only been stifling progress! I can't believe how stupid I was--if only I hadn't been conserving fuel...

      They should have warned me! They could have said, "Oh no, not another Prius owner! Why can't you just drive a 5 mpg Hummer like a normal person? Conserving your fuel? You're outright MAD!! What good could it possibly do to save fuel?" ...

      Yeah that really doesn't make any sense.

    17. Re:Conservation is stupid by cameldrv · · Score: 1

      The conservation options that are available now for homes aren't a sacrifice, people just don't get around to them, or don't know about them. In order to think that conservation requires sacrifice, you have to assume that people are perfectly rational actors and have perfect information. That's not true in practice. In reality, people run ancient air conditioners, refrigerators, hot water heaters, have poorly insulated houses, use inefficient lighting, etc etc. In many many cases, fixing these things pay for themselves in just a few years. The sort of double digit returns you can get on these things yield double digit returns that can't be had in investment markets. In many cases, it's actually economically advantageous even to put these things on a credit card, as their return is greater than even a very high interest rate. People just don't do them because most people can't really do the math on them, or don't think long-term enough, or they simply don't think of them. That's why a public education campaign, or other encouragement is necessary for the economy to operate optimally.

    18. Re:Conservation is stupid by Kohath · · Score: 1

      That's why a public education campaign, or other encouragement is necessary for the economy to operate optimally.

      No one's arguing against that. It would be good. More information is always better.

      I might disagree with you on how much good it will do. People tend to act in their own best interest surprisingly often. It would probably do some good though.

    19. Re:Conservation is stupid by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Oh no, not another Prius owner!

      Here's an article:

      Most Hybrid Vehicles Not as Cost-Effective as They Seem

      But buy what you want. You might be better off with a Prius. I might be better off with an SUV, even when I factor in the cost of the gas.

      That's why they make both SUVs and Prius and that's why they let us decide for ourselves what we need.

    20. Re:Conservation is stupid by douceur · · Score: 1

      Hahaha. Yes, I am too selfish to kill myself. I guess you think that proves your point? Why can't I apply the your logic to your life? Maybe I'm not for conservation at all. Maybe I really do think I should be able to kill you to take your stuff and improve my situation. Then what argument have you? I *don't* want to conserve, and I don't care about other people. Why can't I kill you?

      I was never arguing that you shouldn't use any resources. My point was to show that you're being selfish by only caring about that which pleases you. Am I selfish for wanting to live? I guess you could argue that, though that's certainly less selfish than not caring about other people.

    21. Re:Conservation is stupid by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If you're like the average person, you produce more than you consume. Therefore, if you kill yourself, the world will be worse off in a very practical sense.

      Think about it for a while. The average person produces more than he consumes.

      It's the biggest part of the answer to the resource question.

    22. Re:Conservation is stupid by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      That person must get a benefit above and beyond the additional price of the gas, otherwise, they would have chosen differently.

      That person most likely did not consider the full cost of that decision, which includes American involvement in wars, pollution and related diseases, costs of building and maintaining highways, medical and insurance costs of car accidents, and others. These costs are well hidden from the common citizen.

      Even if that person did consider all costs, it still does not mean that the decision was not wasteful and selfish. Each opinion on what is necessary and what is wasteful is not equally valid as any other.

      Bill Gates reputed has about $40 billion. If he used it to buy 20 billion gallons of gasoline and burned it all in a huge bonfire, by your argument it would not be wasteful as long as he thought it was worth it. Right?

    23. Re:Conservation is stupid by null-loop · · Score: 1

      Unless people have started pissing crude oil recently and I've just been too wrapped in myself to notice this, the average person can't produce basic raw materials. Finished goods, yes (or rather they can maintain the machine that makes the goods).

      --
      "If you unscrew Bill Gates' navel will the bottom fall out of the software market?"
    24. Re:Conservation is stupid by srleffler · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? If anything, conservation drives the development of new technology.

    25. Re:Conservation is stupid by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates reputed has about $40 billion. If he used it to buy 20 billion gallons of gasoline and burned it all in a huge bonfire, by your argument it would not be wasteful as long as he thought it was worth it. Right?

      I'd pay to see that.

      Crap, I bet that's his plan.. have a giant bonfire and get the world to pay for it by buying tickets.

    26. Re:Conservation is stupid by douceur · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything about cost-effectiveness. I guarantee they conserve more fuel. That's my exact point about selfishness. The point isn't about whether or not you'd be better off with an SUV, it's what everybody else would be better off with you owning and driving. You seem to have ignored my argument for that, though.

      Conservation, on the whole, does not stifle progress. If we had decided it would use too much fuel to go to space, that would have slowed progress, no doubt. But that's an exception, not the rule. Daily conservation can serve us greatly.

      For the record, I don't drive a Prius. I drive a '96 Camaro Z28, which I realize is far from the most fuel efficient car in the world. But I'm willing to admit that conservation is not a bad thing, and in fact I would probably be doing the world a small favor if I drove a Prius.

    27. Re:Conservation is stupid by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      You could also kill yourself to conserve the resources you'd otherwise use. Are you too selfish to do that?

      I need your stuff. Since need outweighs all with you, you'd be perfectly okay with me killing you and taking your shit, right?

    28. Re:Conservation is stupid by Scudsucker · · Score: 1
      Conservation prolongs the inevitable - but it doesn't prevent anything - and therefore is pointless

      Bzzt. Managing forests and fishing properly will ensure you can cut lumber and catch fish 10 years from now, 100 years from now or 1000 years from now. Or you could catch fish to the point of extinction and clear cut till all the forests are grasslands, and have absolutly nothing for the future.

      let the flameware begin ...

      No flaiming, just debunking nonsense.

    29. Re:Conservation is stupid by heffrey · · Score: 1

      No they don't.

    30. Re:Conservation is stupid by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Where's the line drawn between 'conservation' and not being wasteful? I make sure my storm windows are closed during the heating and cooling seasons. I'm all for turning the lights off in my basement when no one is down there - my wife seems to disagree.

      Is that conservation, or just not wanting to pay for something that is doing you no good? (The cement floor has no need for illumination...).

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  145. This isn't even a slight problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer is obvious, all americans should do their patriotic duty and buy new american made products that have been built in low wage factories in china and thus provide extra profits for the poor innocent suffering corporations.

    Won't someone think of the corporations!!!

  146. Um.... what will the two extra numerals be like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XI, XII? A, B? Some new symbol? No to mention the nightmare to have to upgrade *everything* to the new base 12 system.

  147. Maybe... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    People (in general) feel better when waking up near / just after sunrise and getting off work while there's still a few hours of daylight left.

    ...he's unemployed and lives in his parents' dark fluorescent-lit basement, you insensitive clod!

  148. Worse Problems by halo8 · · Score: 1

    If the reason (witch it is) there implementing this plan is save billions of dollars of energy costs, i have news for them... your (our) situation is more farked up than this that will save us.

    - get off fossil fuels
    - forget the beach houses and their nice views start building off shore wind farms
    - screw the closed minded enviromentalists, the open minded ones want nuclear power and want it now!
    - instead of thinking of it as power companies spending money to green their plants, think of this as a new growth industry the green industry.

    Thoes are REAL solutions to REAL problems.. daylight savings time as a solution? only the goverment could think that up

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  149. We the people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if EVERYBODY ignores the Bushy Time Bill... it becomes a laughing stock. Time to ignore what DC puts out, its all BS anyway.

  150. Mini Y2K?? by cjh79 · · Score: 1

    Uh, comparing this to Y2K seems a little extreme to me... Y2K was a big deal because it sounded scary to the average non-programmer person and there was nothing they could do to fix it. Taking 10 minutes to change all your clocks twice a year is not a big deal. The world got on fine before all our electronics became self aware and started adjusting themselves automatically for DST.

  151. thank god by Darth+Aragorn · · Score: 1

    Thank Buddha Bush wasn't President for the new millenium. Who knows how he would've handled Y2K. Maybe an excuse to eliminate computers and go back to chopping wood?

  152. Are you sure ? by bmajik · · Score: 1

    http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/franklin.htm l

    Here, franklin calculates the money and pounds of wax required to burn candles into the evening, while sleeping through the perfectly good hours of daylight in the early morning.

    The lifestyle and architecture of modern man very rarely makes efficient use of natural light, to our peril: financially, healthwise [mental and physical], and societally.

    That said, i really cant do anything to get to work much before 9:30. The earlier i get up, the longer i sit around the house.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  153. Better is to permanent by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    the daylight savings time. The one hour change atumn and spring is causing more problems than keeping a fixed schedule all the time.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Better is to permanent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said! We change our mind twice a year about what time it is. Just go to permenant DST and be done with it! Enough of this clock-changing nonsense!!!

  154. Cool by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

    Are you on the same medication I am?

    --

    You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
  155. Amen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen to that!

    I do exactly the same thing. When I'm not there, no need for A/C. When I get home from work earlier and it is warmer, the A/C goes on and the power bill goes up.

    Of course, the office where I work can shut off the A/C a bit earlier to save money. Go figure.

  156. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does blinking "12:00"" need to be reset?

  157. Energy and the US of A by heffrey · · Score: 1

    Energy consumption? How about you guys stop burning all the friggin' oil?

  158. Cell phones are fine by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    But the fact that my cell phone might get confused by the new Daylight Savings Time is what we're hearing about not just on /. but on all sorts of other media outlets.

    Not that it's your point, but cell phones will be fine because they get their time from the provider. I'm sure you notice that the phone auto-corrects when you fly to a different time zone?

  159. Celebrate! by ringworlder · · Score: 1

    We have an excuse!

    Late for school?
    Late for work?
    Caught reading root's mail?
    Blame the change!

  160. Bill is a smokescreen by saskboy · · Score: 1

    Here's my essay on the Time issue. I demonstrate how it saves nothing, and actually causes measurable harm. IT is a certainty that VCRs and Watches that are auto compensating to DST are not going to get the time right now for a month of the year. I live in SK, I know this, since I don't change my clocks anyway in the year I'm always on DST.

    ==

    Time for a change? - USA changes their Daylight Savings Law

            The USA has decided it's high time to take time by force. Just watch them, this time the US federal government is passing a bill that extends Daylight Savings Time into March and November, which gives American children about another 60 days to get up and go to school in the dark, while making sure business executives have more daylight hours on the golf course after dinner. "Supporters say extending daylight saving time would save about 100,000 barrels of oil a day because offices and stores would be open while it was still light outside and therefore use less energy." - boston.com "A government study [conducted in the mid-1970s] estimated the additional energy savings at the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of oil a day, or about half of 1 percent of the nation's daily oil consumption." - suntimes.com When was the last time you saw an open store not using their lights when it was high noon? What business turns off lights when it is bright outside? Besides professional sports I can't think of one.

            OK, I guess you have to start somewhere, and every little bit can help right? Well let's take a look at their numbers and put them into perspective. 60 days of savings X 100,000 barrels of oil = 6 million barrels of oil saved. How does that amount compare to what is typically used in the USA in a day? "Gasoline demand has averaged almost 9.5 million barrels a day over the last four weeks, 2.5 percent more than the same period last year." " Oil prices today are 46 percent higher than a year ago." - bloomberg.com

            What that means is that after 60 days, the USA will have saved less than 1 day's worth of oil [using the conservative 100,000 barrels/day estimate from the 1970s study]. Is it worth it? Maybe.

            If you consider the wild media claims that billions of dollars are spent every year after cleaning up after a computer worm or virus attack, the expense at reprogramming everything computerized that is time sensitive is going to be astronomical. The man-hours to reprogram everything is going to be much greater than any time wasted on malware. It's like a self-imposed Y2K problem that has already been fixed, and we're going back to tinker with it in the guise of saving oil. You could say that the US legislative branch has put in motion a ticking time bomb. This bomb is going to blow this November, and is a potential cash cow for Microsoft [a heavy Bush supporter by the way], IBM, and many other computer programmers. Although it will leave your "smart" VCR or DVD player guessing the wrong time for two months out of the year thanks to its hard-wired clock programming. And it will burden airlines with yet another scheduling nightmare to worry about. And hurt the Canadian transportation industry if we don't standardize our time with the new American DST system.

            So this boils down to a huge waste of time, over an obviously insignificant amount of oil. Before the US government decided to plunge North America [and their other trading partners] into temporal chaos, it'd be nice if they considered the negative consequences of their actions. And it would also be nice if they took meaningful steps to reducing oil consumption such as strict fuel milage laws for new cars. But they don't have time for that I guess.

    ==

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  161. Seconds from 1972 as well... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    Reckon it as miliseconds from 1972 to make people freak out even more.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:Seconds from 1972 as well... by Fareq · · Score: 1

      why not lightmeters instead?

  162. So what. by standards · · Score: 1

    This has happened many times before in the fairly recent past - the last time in the US was in 1987.... and "summertime/DST" rule changes happen around the world virtually every few months. OS and application developers that have international deployments are already familiar with this issue.

    If device developers haven't figured out that rules change over time, shame on them. You have two years to push your new rule into your systems. If people don't patch their systems for one reason or another in two years, well, then I guess they have a problem.

  163. Try again, with thought this time. by QMO · · Score: 1

    "Why not? That's what the oil companies got!"

    Even supposing that oil companies did get "taxpayers to pay for your entire" project it still wouldn't make it right for taxpayers to pay for entire home-improvement projects.

    If some company gets more subsidies than they should, then we need to decrease those subsidies, not increase competing subsidies.

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  164. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by PureCreditor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Scare tactics always work in US. Tell them, doom is near and people will do anything, even .....

    re-elect Bush

  165. here's another idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get out of your dam car and walk to the corner store.

    1. Re:here's another idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this notion of "walking" you speak of?

  166. This will save the US billions of dollars a year. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People have referenced briefly that it will help the US save money, but I hadn't seen any figures yet.

    Last I heard, it was around 5 billion dollars. There's a strong movement in England right now to change their daylight savings to a two hour switch to conserve even more energy.

  167. Wait a tick.... by Black+Mage+Balthazar · · Score: 1

    People actually set their VCR clocks? I've always found the blinking 12:00 a reliable and constant presence in an otherwise busy and changing world.

  168. The power of the government by sxmjmae · · Score: 1

    Time is time.
    The debate went on here too. It was comment that it would allow 1 more hour in the evening to play golf.
    I suggested just getting up an hour earier and leaving work and a hour earier. That way you do do not screw up everyone elses clocks.
    They looked at me all confused and said it would be law and everyone would get that extra hour of day light.
    My comment was: "When did the government get the power to control rotation of earth?"

    No matter how you cut it their is just a specific amount of day light for a given day. Instead of screwing with everyone's clocks so you can get game of golf in just leave the clocks the same all year round. The individual can work their schedule out so they can benefit for the day light. Next time I will put his golf clubs where the sun does not shine!

    Hell as a computer person I usally go 3-4 months at time in (especially in the winter) with out seeing day light at all!

    Ahhhhh... Done venting.

    --
    My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
  169. You Actually Need Both by jubei · · Score: 1

    What people fail to realize is that you cannot easily operate without both global and local time. Most local events are scheduled according the solar day, and so having local time provides you with a more accurate measurement than just "morning, noon, afternoon, evening, night".

    However, it is immensely useful to have global time to schedule things across timezones.

    If people were accostomed to using both in appropriate situations, scheduling problems would be greatly reduced.

    The other thing that will help to avoid confusion is if everyone just stated their timezone by the GMT offset, rather than a generic name. EST or EDT tells me nothing about what daylight-relative time it really is in New York.

  170. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by Calyth · · Score: 1

    So you're the latest lobby behind Bush's antics!

  171. People unclear on the concept... by DragonHawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "What's the conservation endgame?"

    There isn't one. That's the point. As opposed to the endgame for not conserving, which is resource exhaustion.

    I find your question so absolutely hilarious that I just had to reply.

    (Note that "conservation", in sane circles, does not mean "abandoning everything but solar power", the way some nut-jobs (on both ends of the spectrum) seem to think. It means intelligent management of your resources. "Sustainable resource consumption" would be a better term, but that's doesn't roll of the tongue as well.)

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:People unclear on the concept... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the endgame for not conserving, which is resource exhaustion.

      Resource exhaustion is economically impossible.

      As resources become scarce, the price increases to balance their scarcity. At some level, substitutes become more economically attactive and use of the now-expensive, scare resource declines.

      For example, "alternative fuels" will take off when they're cheaper that oil. When oil gets expensive, people will find substitutes. When it gets very very expensive, it won't be used for much at all -- substitutes will be used for everything.

    2. Re:People unclear on the concept... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Resource exhaustion is economically impossible.

      As resources become scarce, the price increases to balance their scarcity. At some level, substitutes become more economically attactive and use of the now-expensive, scare resource declines.


      Yep. Tell that to the Oregon Bison
      And the other species.

      You are 100% right...
      rrrrrrrriiiiiiigth

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:People unclear on the concept... by rhizome · · Score: 1

      Resource exhaustion is economically impossible.

      Under certain economic systems this may be true, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of being physically possible. You're trying to apply something like Zeno's dichotomy paradox to resource exhaustion.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    4. Re:People unclear on the concept... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Yep. Tell that to the Oregon Bison

      Like there aren't substitutes to the Oregon Bison? More practical substitutes?

      What were future generations going to do with the Oregon Bison anyway? Use it to power their fusion engines?

      Should I make myself poor so someone ten thousand years in the future can get a warm fuzzy looking at a poorly-adapted substitute for a cow?

    5. Re:People unclear on the concept... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      No one has a problem with the conservation you speak of. And right now people are pretty much free to conserve to their hearts content.

      What people have a problem with, is supporting Central Planning, and calling it "Conservation". It is one thing to support people voluntarily choosing to conserve resources (which has almost universal support... virtually no-one wants to ban conservation), and another thing for the government to sieze control of all resources, and ration them according to political concerns.

      Conservation is totally possible through popular voluntary action (in fact, that is the only time it has ever really worked). And it is totally possible to have government regulation and central planning that destroys the enviornment (Just look to any past or present Communist state).

      Do you really trust the people who brought you "The War on Drugs", "The War on Poverty", and "The War on Terror", to fix the enviornment? (And to run just about everything else in your life, which will be the consequence of central-planning?)

    6. Re:People unclear on the concept... by WalrusSlayer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Resource exhaustion is economically impossible.

      As resources become scarce, the price increases to balance their scarcity. At some level, substitutes become more economically attactive and use of the now-expensive, scare resource declines.

      Geology doesn't adhere to economic principles I'm afraid, but I digress...

      The point isn't that we'll use up every drop of oil---you are correct that economics will turn price/supply into an asymptotic curve. The problem is the steepness of the curve and what kind of alternative fuel capacity will be online, at what time, and at what cost. The catastrophic scenario is that fossil fuels could very well spike in price decades before alternative fuels are practical. Or even worse, the scarcity of fossil fuels means that developing the alternative fuel infrastructure is infeasible. We should be developing the technologies and building the infrastructure now while we can afford to do so.

      Or to put it another way---imagine that fossil fuels become completely unaffordable (say, $30/gal), and there is no alternative energy in sufficient supply to fill the gap. How, exactly, is that different to the consumer than the scenario where we've hit resource exhaustion? In either case, the consumer ain't going see no oil coming his way...

    7. Re:People unclear on the concept... by srleffler · · Score: 1
      Be careful what you wish for. If scarcity comes on too fast the rise in prices for essential resources can certainly create an economic catastrophe. Yes, we will not completely exhaust the resource, but in the worst case the consequences could make the 1930's seem like a utopia.

      The advantage of conservation is that it gives us some control of the rolloff of resources that are near depletion, and allows us to ensure that alternatives are in place in time to take over as prices for existing resources become too high.

      If we fail on this front, you or your children may well end up starving to death someday.

    8. Re:People unclear on the concept... by ZarkOmicron · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't it the case that conservation of a dimishing resource will really only work if nearly everyone conserves? Otherwise, the result is just that those that do not conserve get to benefit from the lower prices being available just that much longer.

      Also, if it were the case that we were simply going to run out of oil one day, then the concern of a radically steep price increase might be valid. But it is my understanding that a more realistic scenario is that we have to work harder and harder to extract additional oil -- this would result in a somewhat more gradual price increase. Thus, it is not difficult to imagine that there will come a time when the rising cost of oil makes other fuel sources attractive enough to warrant the requisite investments.

    9. Re:People unclear on the concept... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      ...economic catastrophe ... make the 1930's seem like a utopia ... may well end up starving to death ...

      I should make myself artifically poor today based on the chance of some economic disruption in the future?

      I don't think so.

      All your speculation about horrible futures is built into the price of a commodity. Oil is $X based partly on it's projected availability in the future.

      The owners of the oil have more to lose than I do. Why should I second-guess their pricing strategy? If you're so confident in your ability to predict the future, you should be able to make billions in the commodities markets. Wouldn't you be better off doing that than trying to save $5 by carpooling?

    10. Re:People unclear on the concept... by catfry · · Score: 1

      But you don't deny that the Oregon Bison is a resource that IS exhausted? Your argument is that resources that are percieved as insignificant in the present, can casually be drained. I find that attitude problematic. Future knowledge could very well show a hitherto ignored entity to be a very important factor in some value fostering scheme.

    11. Re:People unclear on the concept... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      But you don't deny that the Oregon Bison is a resource that IS exhausted?

      OK, it's a resource. Not much of one, but ok.

      The argument only works when resources are owned. If they're just left out in the open for people to take as many as they want, then they'll all be gone.

    12. Re:People unclear on the concept... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that there's any substantial economic impact due to the exhaustion of the Oregon Bison.

      Conversely, future knowledge might very well show that unnecessary and redundant conservation mechanisms delay or eliminate the introduction of important technologies that would provide a net greater good than the conservation mechanisms provide.

      In other words, that is an un-arguable point. Any number of things might happen in the future.

      Note that I am completely in favor of common-sense conservation efforts. I am in favor of them because I think the economic impacts are minimal, but they are a good idea for largely intangible reasons.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    13. Re:People unclear on the concept... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      I think the GP's point was that there is no such thing as "sustainable resource consuption", and that eventually the resources will be exhausted. Why try to prolong the Earth's life for 50 years or so when we won't even live to see that time period anyway?

      I speak rhetorically, as I'm all for a little conservation.

      So said the guy who runs two computers 24/7.

    14. Re:People unclear on the concept... by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that the STREET PRICE for oil will match the MARKET PRICE. It doesn't. It is all heavily subsidized, effectively RAISING TAXES somewhere else to pay for discounted oil.

      The so-called Energy Bill TAKES money from your paycheck and gives it to the poor, starving energy companies... all of whom face record profits.

      I don't see how subsidies reflect the market engine.

      And I didn't even mention paying for the war. That money comes from an imaginary place (a source the US apparently never looked to when paying for WWII).

    15. Re:People unclear on the concept... by srleffler · · Score: 1
      Perhaps. I don't know. It probably depends on what your definition of 'gradual' is.

      Think gasoline will hit $3 per gallon this year? How much next year? Would a $1 per year increase for the next decade or two be 'gradual'?

    16. Re:People unclear on the concept... by srleffler · · Score: 1
      I should make myself artifically poor today based on the chance of some economic disruption in the future?

      Pretty much. Same concept as insurance: you make yourself a little poorer now to offset a small chance of catastrophe.

      The market is wonderful, but it's not perfect. People make foolish decisions, and sometimes do so collectively as well as individually. Not everything actually does get built into the price of a commodity.

    17. Re:People unclear on the concept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've observed that you seem to relate everything to economics. May I point out that there's many more facets to this question. Where do ethics and morality fit into the picture, for example? How about quality of life? Note that these things cannot have an economic value attached to them.

      Mostly, I think you don't understand what it is to conserve.

      conserve: to keep in a safe or sound state {he conserved his inheritance}; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of {conserve natural resources}

      How does eliminating the wasteful use of a resource or merely maintaining the resources we presently have make you "artificially poor" as you put it?

      Secondly, you say "speculation about horrible futures is built into the price of a commodity" and "oil is $X based partly on it's projected availability in the future". If Enron's practices were any indication, so are purely fantastical and non-existant futures factored into the price people pay. Markets can be manipulated and even controlled. Anyone remember the California energy "crisis"? My point being that unbridled capitalism will not solve our problems and markets won't magically correct themselves.

      Why? It comes down to is this: greed doesn't self correct, which is really what puts your theories into question. Greed is an all consuming black hole. It hasn't a conscience or rationale nor any natural constraints. It exists unto itself under the aegis of entropy.

      Finally, I disagree with your last statement whole heartedly. You have EVERYTHING to lose.

    18. Re:People unclear on the concept... by ZarkOmicron · · Score: 1

      If I were forced to make an even-money bet on whether or not I would be faced with paying $3/gallon for gasoline this year, I would bet against it. It's certainly possible, though.

      Actually, a $1/year increase for the next two decades might be just the right speed to encourage an appropriate amount of investment in alternative fuel sources. Of course, $1/year is not the "bad" scenario, as it isn't an increasing rate of increase...

    19. Re:People unclear on the concept... by srleffler · · Score: 1
      You may not be faced with that, but some people are.

      No, I didn't know about this when I posted the original comment. I just saw it by accident today.

  172. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

    Hey, can you remove that blinking 12:00? I can't figure out how to get the damn thing to tell the time!

  173. PANIC! QUICK! by hanshotfirst · · Score: 1

    1) This doesn't kick in until 2007. There is plenty of time to phase this into new software and devices.

    2) From an article on foxnews.com:
    ---begin quote---

    ...A few countries even change dates every year.

    Israel, for instance, bases daylight time on the lunar Jewish calendar, and Palestinians change their clocks at different times as an assertion of independence. Windows doesn't even provide an auto-adjust option for the time zone covering Jerusalem.

    Moti Tzur, a sales manager at Sakal Electronics Ltd. in Jerusalem, says the constant changes do little to confound manufacturers, sales representatives or consumers.

    "We get up and change the time on the VCR ourselves," Tzur said. "These things come with directions."

    ---end quote---

    --
    Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
  174. Here it always change by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

    I can barely believe the fuzz slashdot (or Americans in general) are doing about this issue.

    I am in Brazil, and here daylight savings time has never been a "stable" issue - I often've found my boxes to go an hour early ablut two weeks after the daylight saving s time was efective (and I had by them updated it by hand).

    No one ever got injured by issues like this - this is no y2k - which also proved to be not much of an issue.

    --
    -><- no .sig is good sig.
  175. Y2K Part II ? by blankmeyer · · Score: 1

    As the media makes a mountain out of a molehill on this one, I cannot help but be reminded of Y2K. Yeah, there could be some hiccups. Yeah, TiVo might have to be patched. Yeah, I might have to adjust the time on my five year old watch and then adjust it back once it auto-adjusts a month later (or would it be earlier?).

    There is plenty of time for technology makers to solve this 'problem'. But rational thinking will not win out. Products not labeled "2007 Daylight Savings Compliant" will sit on the store shelves with consumers afraid not to buy them. Marketing teams are going to eat through their budgets on this one, recreating product package complete with a new-fangled, neon colored sticker proclaiming compliance. Not to mention the TV ads they're going to have to produce.

    It will be a Y2K scare all over again. I better start restocking the bomb shelter and stockpiling weaponry.

  176. How will if affect my watch ??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I reset my watch (a Casio) an hour forward the first Sunday in April every spring ...and reset it an hour back the last Sunday in October every fall.

    Been doing it manually for decades.

    How is this going to impact me and my Casio?

    (Wonder how many idiots will go out and buy a new watch because of the change?)

    1. Re:How will if affect my watch ??! by Nermal6693 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wish my watch (also a Casio) would automatically adjust itself. Computers can do it (even when not online), so a watch should be able to as well. Plus the "adjust" button on my watch is a nightmare to press, really need 2 hands to do it (before you tell me to just take my watch off, it's too much trouble, the band's broken so my watch is zip-tied on).

    2. Re:How will if affect my watch ??! by Nermal6693 · · Score: 1

      Interesting... get sidetracked while typing a post, and get modded Funny :)

  177. The REAL point of DST changes: Retailers by standards · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ah! You're missing the point of this law! The point isn't saving energy. The point is increasing RETAIL SHOPPING HOURS.

    As a large retailer, we know that core shopping happens during daylight hours. As the sun sets, people start clearing out of the retail stores.

    In most parts of the country, retail stores open at a fixed time, either 9AM (or 10AM in some areas). Almost no stores open at "sunrise".

      Therefore, core shopping hours are from a 9AM until sunset. Maybe the store is open until 9 PM, but in general shopping activity slows way down at sunset. This is just a known fact in the retail industry.

    By changing the clock, sunset can happen later relative to clock time. Therefore, if we add a month of DST, we add about 30 hours of prime-time shopping to our annual retail calendar!

    To a retailer, this is huge news - this is almost like adding 3+ full shopping days to our calendar at almost zero cost.

    My management was amazingly happy by this rule change.

    1. Re:The REAL point of DST changes: Retailers by ByrneArena · · Score: 1

      So what you are really saying is that this is nothing more than another example of Bush doling out uneeded corporate welfare?

    2. Re:The REAL point of DST changes: Retailers by jonfr · · Score: 1

      The sun goes down at the same time, even the clock is changed back and forth.

    3. Re:The REAL point of DST changes: Retailers by standards · · Score: 1

      The sun goes down at the same time, even the clock is changed back and forth.

      Whoops, you're wrong. Here is a counter example:

      Yesterday, the sun set here at 8:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time. If it were Eastern Standard Time, the sun would have set at 7:03 PM.

      Therefore, the sun would go down at a DIFFERENT time of day based on how we set our clock.

    4. Re: The REAL point of DST changes: Retailers by gidds · · Score: 1
      In most parts of the country, retail stores open at a fixed time, either 9AM (or 10AM in some areas). Almost no stores open at "sunrise".

      So rather than change this simple little thing, everyone else has to entirely rearrange their calendars and schedules...?

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    5. Re: The REAL point of DST changes: Retailers by standards · · Score: 1

      Our stores open at 10 AM because there are no customers before 10 AM.

  178. The problem isn't which system to use ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the problem is that the DST change in the bill that the President just signed goes into effect next March. Given the increasing number of devices that include clocks and/or calendar functionality, that's a lot of things that need to be modified to reflect the change. I'm not sure if 7 months, give or take, is enough time to do that.

    This could have serious consequences if medical or financial devices don't get updated -- devices that dispense medication too early or too late, traders that can't submit stock transactions because a computer thinks the market is still closed or just closed ...

  179. Moving DST by jsveiga · · Score: 1

    In Brazil, we have long learned to accept the fact that no gadget (Windows included) knows when the DST starts or ends correctly.

    Twice a year, Windows PCs set to automatically adjust for DST get it wrong and confuse users.

    This is because the government keeps changing the dates every year.

    For debian (don't know about other distros) there is even a package to track the Brazilian DST start/end dates and adjust the system correctly, called tz-brazil!

    Joao

  180. Are you complaining? Move to Brazil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where the federal government seems to be unable to create a simple rule and apply it year after year to define the start and end dates of daylight saving time.

  181. I also.. by kcb93x · · Score: 1

    ...prefer to shift with my right.

    Even though it's an automatic.

    The one thing they give us, everything else is discrimination...

    Like the big metal scissors in school, that only right handed people can use (because the school is too cheap to buy decent scissors)

    Or computer mice. One of these days, I'm going to start randomly switching the buttons on the mouse (within the OS) on people.

    Books! They say the ending is better than the beginning, so we end on the right side of the page! MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LEFT-HANDED PEOPLE!

    RISE UP WE MUST, FELLOW LEFTIES!

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:I also.. by secolactico · · Score: 1

      You can at least take consolation in the fact that if you were a handlinger, you'd be a member of the nobility caste.

      --
      No sig
    2. Re:I also.. by dorsey · · Score: 3, Funny

      My friends, common sense and traditional time-tested dexterity prove that left-handedness is simply wrong. Writing with your right hand is natural law--WRITE MEANS RIGHT! Righteous people know the difference between right and left!

      According to the Encylopedia Britannica (1944), "The percentage of left-handedness . . . is much higher among inmates of institutions for the feeble minded and the psychopathic." Yet these "biological errors" are campaigning for special recognition as a legitimate minority to force you to accept their immoral behavior. Worse yet, the schools are encouraging deviant-handed diversity and facilitating the use of sinful southpaw scissors!

      The Bible says, "A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left" (Ecclesiastes 10:2), and "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the EVERLASTING FIRE" (Matthew 25:41).

      "Theories relative to handedness vary in their treatment of it as an acquired or a native trait," says the Britannica. Many experts believe that left-handedness is learned and can be corrected. With repentance and reparative therapies, sinners caught in the lecherous leftist lifestyle can be converted and cured. Yes, right righteousness and healthy handedness is possible! Many ex-southpaws have become normal, happy right-writers. Some have even held hands, gotten married, and had children!

      But the militant leftist lobby says they were "born that way." They cite evidence that it's genetic, morally neutral, and normal! Well, that doesn't mean we have to teach children that it's OK to respect people who are different! Any nonjudgmental mention of left-handedness is "promotion" of wrong behavior, encouraging vulnerable young children to experiment with alternative handedness!

      Since right-thinking people believe that wrong-handedness is immoral, we will force the schools to teach only OUR beliefs to YOUR children!

      AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL!

      -M. Dennis Moore

      --
      hinderfreude ('hin-dur-"froi-d&), n. The feeling of joy derived from being in the way.
    3. Re:I also.. by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, my father was raised in the 40's and 50's here in Australia, and his left-handedness was literally beaten out of him at school. Left-handers were forced to learn to write with their right hand.

    4. Re:I also.. by blorg · · Score: 1

      Same here, 50s Ireland. The grandparent wasn't actually too far off what used to happen.

  182. Oh my god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government controls time now too!

  183. How surreal! by Hosiah · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A program that does nothing is augmented to do even more nothing for reasons which have nothing to do with it.

    Daylight Savings was originally implemented by Ben Franklin (simplified version: "to get farmers out of bed and milking the cows"). When was the last time Daylight Savings had an impact on your life, except twice a year when you change stuff or check it? Or give you an annual convenient excuse to roll into work an hour late?

    And it's just plain Dadaism to think it has anything at all to do with energy consumption. Do y'suppose Bush actually believes he controls the seasons by moving the clocks and calandar pages around? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

    1. Re:How surreal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's just plain Dadaism to think it has anything at all to do with energy consumption. Do y'suppose Bush actually believes he controls the seasons by moving the clocks and calandar pages around? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

      No, but it controls when people are in their homes. Now, assuming that responsible people actually change their thermostats or have programmable thermostats that adjust the comfort zone of the house when they aren't there to consume energy, then extending daylight savings time will mean that AC units are operating less and therefore using less energy to move heat out of the homes. Even without an adjustable thermostat not having a person in the house reduces the heat from the person and any additional devices (TV, Oven) they may be using - which results in less heat that needs to be pumped out of the home.

      Instead of just bashing Bush for the moron that he is why don't you use your fucking brain and try to think about why someone would want to do this.

    2. Re:How surreal! by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Goody! I love getting into pissing contests with ACs! A Slashdot tradition.

      To answer your bothersome nonsense: no, daylight savings has never had any bearing on whether I'm inside or outside. I go outside in order to get to work at the time the boss says, to go to the store, etc. These events happen both day and night, with no regard for what the numbers on any device say. Listen, I've gone months without *looking* at a clock - I simply knew that when I woke up, it was time to work, and when I was too tired to work anymore, it was time to go to bed!

      The most energy-efficient way to manage your household environment, by the way, is to keep it at a constant, even temperature, year-round. And in any case, you want to tell me how we justify changing the whole society's circadian rythms just to appease the friggin' thermostats? Re-program the thermostats, already!

      I don't bash Bush for being a moron. That's secondary to his preference for felating porcine specimens.

  184. official global standard by zrl · · Score: 1

    stop messing with 'time'. this is the official global standard for working hour scheduling: for all people working inside buildings, and require lighting other than natural light, they should start their working-day after sunset during summer; for winter, day starts after sunrise; for all people working outdoors, start their working-day after sunrise; also, lets schule the working hours by zip code to meet the traffic speed and reduce air pollution. ++ all future building design must utilize natural light during day time by all means (light tunnel, optical reflection, etc.).

  185. Re:Decimal time, you win some you lose some by killawatt5k · · Score: 0, Troll

    I hope you can get over it. I was under the impression that Critical thought was a HIGHER Skill Than SpeLLing. you should check out this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0177650/ Its about a guy who masters the english language, but unfortunatly He iS a ComPLEter Dipshit! you guys might have something in common. NOw I GUEss I just need to work on My CaPPitalizzzzation.(is that spelled w/ 4 z's Or onE?) have fun pointing out IRRELEVENT points to RelevenTTTTTT Posts wanker! BTW "Moffie" is spelled wrong! its really speled @$$h013

  186. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    You can't blame Bush for not doing anything in his power to help the economy. As long as you are forced to buy new crap and send your old, perfectly working stuff to the dumpster, it's all good man. The only way this economy can be happy is by generating massive piles of unneeded trash and waste, because, well, we can't find any other way, any other system, to live our collective lives, conserving resources, and only consuming what's really needed, not based on artificial demand, but what demand stems naturally.

  187. Riiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK so instead of people asking "what time is it there?" they'd be asking a million other questions such as "at what time do you people have your dinners?" There'd no longer be such a thing as "nooners", 12 oclock lunch time, or "punching out at 5"...

  188. EST=UTC-5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The -5 in the time zone tells you precisely the information you need to figure out the difference.

    1. Re:EST=UTC-5 by thefirelane · · Score: 1

      Again,
      How does this help? So instead of saying "its 8am there" you're utopia would say "It's 1pm, minus 5 hours for sun, there"

      Just saying the relative time there conveys all needed information: You want to know at what point in their day the people in another area are.

    2. Re:EST=UTC-5 by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Not only that, when I'm there I want my watch to let me know how long it is until lunch time. I don't want to have to remember that lunch is now at 20:00 instead of the usual 17:00 I'm used to, or that I should set my alarm clock to 16:00 instead of 14:00 when I want to make a morning meeting.

  189. There's no S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Daylight Saving Time, not "Savings"

  190. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by jafac · · Score: 1

    Scare tactics always work in US. Tell them, doom is near and people will do anything, even hire you ;)!

    . . . by the way, did I mention that I'm an antiterrorism expert?

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  191. Moral Ramifications of DST by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1
    If God wanted the day to start earlier, he'd just change the roation of the Earth like he did for Elijah when he needed an extra day! These durned politicans are trying to play god, wreaking havoc on natural processes! God created seasons and trying to live by some artificial schedule is thumbing your nose at him, saying "I don't need your seasons and I don't need you!"</RANT>

    Ok, so that argument is a little silly, but I'm sure someone out there would advance it. ^_^ But seriously, in terms of morality, it's been proven that DST results in more accidents due to sleepy drivers and joggers who no longer have daylight during their normal exercise hours. The increased fatalities caused by this arbitrary change in time could be seen as a moral issue. *shrug* Or some might see it as Darwinian selection. Those who are fool enough to jog without lights and reflectors (Och... and don't even get me started on people on designated bike paths who are jogging or walking in pitch darkness with no reflectors or lights...) are eliminated. ^_^ And the computer geeks will survive. The benefits of a sendentary lifestyle...

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  192. Daylight Saving Time all year long by Quevar · · Score: 1

    I completely disagree. I think Daylight Saving Time is the answer for the whole year. Why are we only on it during the summer? Why can't we 'save' time year 'round? Below is a list of the 1st of each month for 2005. First time listed is the current system (in parentheses are always on DST). Keep in mind that almost everyone is awake between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, yet going off DST makes it dark then. Not everyone is awake between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM. March, April, November, and December are very good examples.

    Janurary 1st:
    Sun Rise: 7:18am (8:18am)
    Sun Set: 4:29pm (5:29pm)

    February 1st:
    Sun Rise: 7:03am (8:03am)
    Sun Set: 5:04pm (6:04pm)

    March 1st:
    Sun Rise: 6:25am (7:25am)
    Sun Set: 5:39pm (6:39pm)

    April 1st:
    Sun Rise: 5:33am (6:33am)
    Sun Set: 6:15pm (7:15pm)

    Move clocks forward one hour - on DST
    May 1st:
    Sun Rise: 5:46am (5:46am)
    Sun Set: 7:48pm (7:48pm)

    June 1st:
    Sun Rise: 5:17am (5:17am)
    Sun Set: 8:18pm (8:18pm)

    July 1st:
    Sun Rise: 5:18am (5:18am)
    Sun Set: 8:29pm (8:29pm)

    August 1st:
    Sun Rise: 5:43am (5:43am)
    Sun Set: 8:09pm (8:09pm)

    September 1st:
    Sun Rise: 6:15am (6:15am)
    Sun Set: 7:25pm (7:25pm)

    October 1st:
    Sun Rise: 6:46am (6:46am)
    Sun Set: 6:33pm (6:33pm)

    Move clocks back one hour - off DST
    November 1st:
    Sun Rise: 6:22am (7:22am)
    Sun Set: 4:45pm (5:45pm)

    December 1st:
    Sun Rise: 6:58am (7:58am)
    Sun Set: 4:20pm (5:20pm)

    The only difference comes during the winter (since this would always be on DST). We essentially lose an hour in the winter and gain it in the late afternoon. Not everyone wakes up before 8:00 and I can't think of a single person who would go to bed before 6:00 PM, so everyone is gaining access to the late afternoon/early evening light and only some people are losing the morning light (many people are still asleep). Why aren't we on Daylight Saving Time all year? I would prefer that much more than having it. We wouldn't have to mess with changing clocks or (re)programming our devices and we'd have more light in the early evening.

  193. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by admiralh · · Score: 1

    Resetting the time on an electronic device is trivial.

    I used to work for a company that build devices that sent time code signals, especially for radio, TV, and military applications.

    Yes, setting the time is trivial. But until you make that change, the time is wrong, and all kinds of devices are out of whack (especially the ones that play pre-programmed commercials based on the time), so the device needs to be programmed to do the change automatically. We had the standard DST setting, but now all the users will be forced to custom program it to change the DST date correctly, since the standard program is no longer correct. And since this is just a little device sitting in this big complex system, every radio and TV engineer is swearing under his breath (or possible very loudly) at these people.

    The funny thing is, I remember the 70's energy crisis where we had a year or two with full-time DST. They decided that the energy saved in the evening with later sunsets was used in the morning with later sunrises, and thus was a wash. Go figure. But since the Bushies seem to be igorant of history in general, it's not surprising.

    Of course the cynic in me says they did this only to get the public all riled up about something trivial, and thus ignore the massive tax giveaways to large multinational corporations. But good old likeable GWB would never do something like that, would he?

    --
    Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
  194. The DAYLT flag is broadcast ... by ANeufeld · · Score: 1

    ... for CDMA-based cell phones. They won't be confused by a change in daylight savings times start/end date. At least, they won't be confused as long as the network providers change the DAYLT flag at the correct start/end dates.

    Certain other gadgets get time from the a broadcast source as well (PBS cable channel, US atomic clock, ...). Assuming the broadcast includes the DAYLT flag, those devices should be fine as well.

  195. So either you get half a pie, or a fifth of a pie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first one would tend to make you fatter than Americans!

    The second one would be a pain to slice!

  196. Re:Decimal time, you win some you lose some by Moofie · · Score: 0, Troll

    After digging through your post, I didn't see any critical thought, so my initial impression (that you were a nimrod) was borne out.

    Yes, thinking is more important than spelling. Unfortunately, you're bad at both.

    Hugs n' kisses.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  197. Terror? by Valiss · · Score: 1

    "Stop the apocalypse! Hire me"

    Scare tactics always work in US. Tell them, doom is near and people will do anything, even hire you ;)!


    If you don't hire me, the terrorist have already won(?).

    --

    -Valiss
  198. What about... by belg4mit · · Score: 1

    the real meat of the bill? Oh wait, there is none.
    See http://www.energybulletin.net/7473.html, http://uspirg.org/ and others.

    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?
  199. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by mapmaker · · Score: 1
    Scare tactics always work in US. Tell them, doom is near and people will do anything, even hire you ;)!

    If you don't hire me to reprogram your VCR, the terrorists have already won!

  200. I want to know the title of your history book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or better yet, an Amazon.com link? Man, I've been missing out on some choice history.

    1. Re:I want to know the title of your history book by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      This should give you some insight into this sort of nefarious conspiracy.

      Fnord.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
  201. Daylight SavingS by sita · · Score: 1

    Just to clarify, it's "daylight saving" time...No "s".

    This is a common misconception. You deposit one hour in the spring, and in the fall you withdraw. The interest is unfortunately low, but non-zero, as the hour you withdraw will be a teeny-weeny bit longer due to the slowdown of the earth's rotation.

  202. Re:Long term we are just as screwed... by vertinox · · Score: 1

    You fall into the trap that so many others do of failing to think of the long term and thinking only in the short.

    Living in a world free from pollution and cancer is nice, but the only thing that can save the human race from extinction is a space program and a rather good one at that.

    Meteor impacts are inevitable and the earth is actually covered with thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) impact craters and we will more than likely get hit with a big one in a few thousand years or so.

    That and the sun will die or explode eventually... So no matter how much we give the environment, it's going to all to turn to space dust as the red giant blows solar winds that strip the earth of it's atmosphere.

    On the bright side we have a few billion years to get out of the solar system.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  203. Re:base-60 and metric-60=we have metric time (almo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can count to 31 on one hand, and 1023 on both. So counting to 60 should be no trouble at all.

  204. Re:Decimal time, you win some you lose some by killawatt5k · · Score: 0, Troll

    You are a rocket scientist? are you the guy who forgot to convert English to metric, and totaly fucked up one of NASAs missions, well atlest you can spell proper english! mabee you can help me out... is centER spelled Centre? how about Color and Colour? no offense but sorry i can think faster than I can type. And I personallly (does that have 4 or 3 l's) would like to apologize for the very first misspelled word in the coments secion of slahdot since its conseption. BTW if you are as smart as you think you are can you tell me when it is apropriate to us a semicolon as apossed t a colon? (news flash...this just in...American english is apervesion on the Queen's english.) If you are such a linquist move to France where they actually have a government orginivation that makes sure their language is pure french & it isn't corrupted by forein words. I hear air fair is cheap now! Or mabee is should add the (sic) suffix to everword I use, just so we can be cool again! Oh and incase you were wondering if I was a Nimrod I would have registered "thelastcoolnameyet.com" but some spelling nazi beat me to it (very original)! LONG LIVE AND PROSPER -spock...opps! i forgot to put quotes around that...Mabee you really are smarter than me

  205. Re:Long term we are just as screwed... by Buran · · Score: 1

    On the bright side we have a few billion years to get out of the solar system.

    And with a decade left to go, we'll still be saying "Our kids will fix it". You just watch ...

  206. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're one of the Lords of Cobol they're always talking about on BSG.

    Hate to tell ya this, but someone nicked your arrow.

  207. First in 2007 by isj · · Score: 1

    The change to dayligt saving is first effective 2007. From the bill: ...subsection (a) shall take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act or March 1, 2007, whicever is later.

  208. So international time difference = f(date)! by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine the problems this ass-hat idea would cause if put into effect, especially wrt international time differences which will now vary according to the time of year (those parts of the year when the US will now be on Bush time vs world time).

    I'm sure multinational businesses, airlines, etc, are going to have a ball with this.

    What next? Bush passes law to make everyone wear orange on tuesdays and walk backwards on the weekend?!

  209. Conservation is Efficiency by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Conservation is stupid. Conservation is simply artificially impoverishing yourself. There's no benefit. No, conservation is about using your resources efficiently. Just look at the Japanese. They have no oil or coal resources of their own and have to pay through the nose for all their energy and material costs. This hits their bottom line hard. The Japanese decided to conserve. Their manufacturing industry uses signficantly less energy than ours. They recycle everything. They designed their cities so that 70% of the population can take public transit. As a result, despite crippling energy and material costs and a ten-year long "depression" (thanks to the damage done by land speculation), they still had the second largest GDP of any nation in the world until China took off and now sit at third. What's the conservation endgame? There isn't one. That's the whole point -- to not have an endgame. Why should acting efficiently without waste have an endgame? The alternative is global economic meltdown and brutal war over the scraps. Fresh water rights are already becoming an issue in certain parts of the world (particularly the Middle East). Arable land will become more and more at a premium as desertification increases due to global warming. Energy costs will soar as people turn up the air conditioning to avoid death by heat stroke (see the deadly heat have in the American Southwest this month). We may in fact be looking at peak oil production right now, and there's no effort to make better use of what we have, and it's only a matter of time until the largest nations decide that the only way to continue their way of life is to deny others access (see the recent Unocal purchase block). Ever hear of the tragedy of the commons? Did you know that the Middle East -- the so-called Fertile Crescent -- used to be forested and well farmed? The flag of Lebanon has a cedar tree on it because the things used to grow all over the place there! However, an unsustainable lumber industry destroyed the forests to the point that they could no longer regrow and the area is largely a desert now. A little conservation here could've left us with a forested Lebanon today. We're seeing the same thing with many of the ocean's seafood species. We're overfishing several species to the point that they're in danger, and our methods of fishing for some species (like dragging nets for shrimp) are destroying many others. A little conservation here could mean that our grandchildren know what seafood tastes like (assuming we haven't dumped enough mercury from our coal plants to make it unsafe for them). Conservation is about having enough to work with in our life and for not stealing the future from our descendents. It's about treating resources as what they are -- finite though in many cases renewable -- and acting with the wisdom to get the most out of them that you and your descendents can.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  210. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by Fareq · · Score: 1

    One word: hackers

  211. Re:Decimal time, you win some you lose some by Moofie · · Score: 0, Troll

    First: Decaf.

    Second: You might be able to think faster than you can type, but since you're obviously not too swuft at stringing together a coherent thought, I'm not sure it matters very much.

    Third: For semicolon use, check out an MLA style guide. I'll go out on a limb and assume you can get that typed more or less correctly into a Google search box.

    Fourth: If you had something worthwhile to say, it might be worthwhile for me to decipher it. Since you don't, I won't trouble myself with you any further.

    More hugs n' kisses!

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  212. Stupid HTML format option! by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Ugh. I forgot to switch it back from when I was originally blockquoting material. Here's my post in readable format:

    Conservation is stupid. Conservation is simply artificially impoverishing yourself. There's no benefit.

    No, conservation is about using your resources efficiently. Just look at the Japanese. They have no oil or coal resources of their own and have to pay through the nose for all their energy and material costs. This hits their bottom line hard. The Japanese decided to conserve. Their manufacturing industry uses signficantly less energy than ours. They recycle everything. They designed their cities so that 70% of the population can take public transit. As a result, despite crippling energy and material costs and a ten-year long "depression" (thanks to the damage done by land speculation), they still had the second largest GDP of any nation in the world until China took off, and they now still sit at third.

    What's the conservation endgame?

    There isn't one. That's the whole point -- to not have an endgame. Why should acting efficiently without waste have an endgame?

    The alternative is global economic meltdown and brutal war over the scraps. Fresh water rights are already becoming an issue in certain parts of the world (particularly the Middle East). Arable land will become more and more at a premium as desertification increases due to global warming. Energy costs will soar as people turn up the air conditioning to avoid death by heat stroke (see the deadly heat have in the American Southwest this month). We may in fact be looking at peak oil production right now, and there's no effort to make better use of what we have, and it's only a matter of time until the largest nations decide that the only way to continue their way of life is to deny others access (see the recent Unocal purchase block).

    Ever hear of the tragedy of the commons? Did you know that the Middle East -- the so-called Fertile Crescent -- used to be forested and well farmed? The flag of Lebanon has a cedar tree on it because the things used to grow all over the place there! However, an unsustainable lumber industry destroyed the forests to the point that they could no longer regrow and the area is largely a desert now. A little conservation here could've left us with a forested Lebanon today.

    We're seeing the same thing with many of the ocean's seafood species. We're overfishing several species to the point that they're in danger, and our methods of fishing for some species (like dragging nets for shrimp) are destroying many others. A little conservation here could mean that our grandchildren know what seafood tastes like (assuming we haven't dumped enough mercury from our coal plants to make it unsafe for them).

    Conservation is about having enough to work with in our life and for not stealing the future from our descendents. It's about treating resources as what they are -- finite though in many cases renewable -- and acting with the wisdom to get the most out of them that you and your descendents can.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  213. Re:Time for a change... to Triangular by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    Triangular Earth Calendar

    I think the 60 week years will appeal to you. Divisibility and symmetry of the calendar is one of its greatest assets. Being based on triangular numbers, it is the most whole number divisible calendar available, as it scales up at base 10, so you don't have to learn anything new to apply it to a decade, century, or millennium.

    It is, however, based on decimal time, with a day equalling a unit of 1, and time being a decimal of that. With standard language, time can always be represented as a factor of one, such as 1/2 of a day, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, etc. That's just a bit hard to make a clock out of, though.

    --
    I8-D
  214. Re:Um.... what will the two extra numerals be like by amliebsch · · Score: 1
    Usually, the proposed additional numerals are "X" (pronounced "dek" or "ten") for 10-base10, and "E" (written like a backwards "3" and pronunced "ell" or "elf" for 11-base10.

    Of course, you're right, the path-dependency or "QWERTY" effect would be almost impossible to overcome. It would be better, though. Much better than base10 time.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  215. Re:Decimal time, you win some you lose some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    perhaps "Moffie" is really spelled "@$$h013", but how is "Moofie" spelled?

  216. Time zones good, DST bad by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
    I agree; local time should be a natural measure so that the sun is at the zenith at 12:00 noon. Daylight saving time disrupts this idea, because then the noon (sun at zenith) is at 1 pm.

    I think the main problem with daylight saving time is that while sunlight is symmetrical around 12 am / 12 pm, our use of that time is skewed so that the center of our waking day is in the afternoon. DST is an attempt to force the "waking midday" closer to solar noon, but it would take more than one hour to do that, with our typical use of time. On the other hand, why should it be forced? Why not let people and businesses decide how they use their time?

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  217. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by Garthnak · · Score: 1

    Wow. You just demonstrated perfectly the fallacy of the broken window. Congratulations.

    The economy is not renewed by over-consumption. It does not get better by throwing things away and buying more. It is renewed by efficient production - that is, production that fulfills the most urgent wants and needs of the populace. The demand is totally natural - once our most urgent needs are met, our secondary needs and wants can be met. After that our tertiary needs and wants, our quaternary needs and wants, etc. My demand for a specific flavor of toothpaste only follows after I have already successfully fulfilled my other needs - food, shelter, and a toothbrush. It is not artificial...it is just what I can afford to focus on in a society of such wealth.

    --
    Liberty in Our Lifetime - http://www.freeme.org/
  218. Re:Freemasons, Illuminati, and the True Origin of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More than likely just "on" something...

  219. Re:Decimal time, you win some you lose some by killawatt5k · · Score: 0, Troll

    1. YEA you bulid model rockets in you parents basement, and shoot if off in an empty football feild! that constitutes RS?
    2.MLA no fucking shit I've got one. (that just shows you DO NOT it know off of the top of your head! (nice try though)
    3.YOU started talking shit! YOU come up w/ something worth while to say. (Not something like 'I'm a rocket scientist' WTF do something productive w/ your life instead of contributing to Mass Death and Destruction. You murder! why don't you read up on Ward Churchill....exerpt...from wiki...
    Churchill received national attention in January 2005 for a controversial essay he wrote following the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which he described the attacks as "chickens coming home to roost," and the people working in the World Trade Center as "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" and as "little Eichmanns."
    3b. Incase you don't know what hes talking about try reading some NON-US[Propaganda] Books, since you have such a comanding understanding of the English Language
    4. I'm NOT a Homosexual (not that there is anything wrong w/ that) so stop huging and kissing me!
    5. sorry you're having a bad day because I misspelled a cuple uv werds butttt joo shud geat ovur et!
    6. Rocket Man! YOU are part of the Military Industrialist Complex that Eisenhower warned us about! I would personally like to thak you for the impending decline and third-world-ization of the USA.
    Thanks now my kids will be able to get a worse education than I got! Three Cheers for Moofie!

  220. Mod Parent Up by AlistairGroves · · Score: 1

    Bit tinfoil maybe, but some good points...

  221. Re:Freemasons, Illuminati, and the True Origin of by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny
    Now if we [1] could just convince the ground where I live not to be frozen on Groundhog Day [2], our plan would be complete.

    [1] I'm a Master Mason.
    [2] My wife's and firstborn's birthday.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  222. Re:Decimal time, you win some you lose some by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Wow.

    Be careful...you're validating my stereotypes of poor spellers.

    I am SO PROUD that you managed to spell "Eisenhower" correctly. And propaganda! Good job! Now you just need to work on the paranoid delusions and the whole "I before E except after C" rule.

    You're making progress. Gold star!

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  223. Re:Decimal time, you win some you lose some by killawatt5k · · Score: 1

    well it depends which side of "the pond" you are on.Its like asking where to find an elevator in the UK, where there they call it a lift. its also the same a Trucks being called Lorries over there. there are countless examples. FAG! oh I mean Ciggarette. that's probably spelled wrong also. but I'll let my editor Moffie call my agent, so he can call my secretary, then she'll fill me in!(FYI: I am a rocket science project manager, and DR. Moffie I regret to inform you your services are no longer required) *HIGH FIVE!*

  224. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

    Scare tactics always work in US. Tell them, doom is near and people will do anything, even hire you ;)!

    I'll have you know that telling people in the US that doom is near will spur them to do absolutely nothing. However, if you carefully word the statement and say "doom is nigh" you will evoke the intended effect.

  225. Daylight Saving Time by brianiac · · Score: 1

    Repeat after me: Daylight Saving Time, Daylight Saving Time, Daylight Saving Time; Not Daylight Savings Time.

    Daylight saving time

  226. In Canada, the businesses are bending over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Canada, business people are bending over to do the same thing here "Oh, we *MUST* change our daylight savings times also, so that we will be in concert, otherwise our schedules would have to change...". My first thoughts were "What bullshit, it's not like the travelling public doesn't already have to deal with time zone differences already, one more isn't going to kill ya...". There was also the little matter of people getting up/driving to work in the middle of the night (early daylight). People *COULD* get killed in low-light traffic accidents by drowzy motorists, going to work in the "New-super-adjusted daylight savings time", that the business bend-overs are pushing for so hard. Talk about pimping yourself out for the cause...!

  227. STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DAYLIGHT SAVINGS IS STUPID.

  228. Os patches by Felinoid · · Score: 1

    This will result in every operating system that handles daylight savings needing an update.
    However some will be screwed (Sorry 95/98 users) becouse they are no longer supported.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
  229. Time to call Ed Yourdon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world is ending! Time to cash in! Ka-ching!!

  230. critical thought MY ASS! by killawatt5k · · Score: 1

    my point being that since the invention of light bulbs, there is no reason in the information age to worry about when the sun will come up. ever thought of how productive society could be if 1/3 of the work force worked 9am-5pm, the other third from 5am-1am, and the later worked 1am-9pm well trafic would be cut down considerably, as would car related deaths(not to mention increased productivity.) I know these things are off of you radar, because you are such a bad ass RS! but daylight savings time is ONLY repeat ONLY imortant to farmers!(and yes I know some Farmers). Since you are such a bad ass Rocket scientist why don't you work out time zones for the moon and mars instead of fucking w/ some kid who misspelled a couple(or eight) words[or even worse contributing to deaths of innocent kids. p.s. My granddad worked for the manhattan project, which is not something I'm proud of. So don't think I'm impressd by your job, and I wouldn't bet on your descendants being proud of you either. The whole war paradigm has changed and I wish i knew how you feel when you KNOW FOR A FACT that innocent Civis have died a a direct part of your work. mabbe you would feel better about yourself if you worked w/ R/E (if you don't know what that means you need help) INSTEAD of contributing to the Perpetualy Death Machine! work on & get back w/ me! *high Five*

  231. We should've protested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...with huge "Kill Energy Bill" posters.

  232. My opinion on how to do it. by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    Why not scrap DST altogether? No more falling back or springing forward. It creates a hassle with everything.

    But still allow States to decide which timezone they want. So if Washington state wants to go to Mountain Time instead of Pacific Time, so be it. Afterall, this new DST is going to be 9 months a year, so why not just have the next standard time zone year-round?

    I think we should keep leap seconds. GMT needs to come at noon. The U.S. government doesn't need to be doing stupid stuff like this in the name of saving energy. People can stagger their work schedules. Schools can adjust their times. And people can invest in having solar panels on their roofs.

    1. Re:My opinion on how to do it. by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      What schools should consider doing is to readjust their start times on a monthly basis to occur around 1-2 hours at sunrise.

      So if sunrise is around 8am during one part of the year, just start school at 9am-10am. If sunrise is around 4am-5am, then start school around 6am-7am. Either that or shorten the school day in the winter months and add extra school days in the summer.

  233. another problem for some timezones by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    is that with universal time the date would change during the working day.

    this would mean that you couldn't use dates to identify working days without having to seperately make it clear if you were talking about the date the workday started in or the one it ended in.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  234. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    I know COBOL was popular and all, and it's not a bad language, but I doubt it's the code that runs my VCR.
    +++
    Cache In, Trash Out!
    +++
      My new Home

  235. Everyone using GMT by Macdude · · Score: 1

    So we'll all have the same time on our watches, but we'll be doing whatever we want whenever we want and coordination would become even more confusing.

    It wouldn't complicate much of anything, people on the US East coast would start work at 1:00 pm while people on the US West coast start work at 4:00. The specific time only matters to the people living/staying there. People in other areas will have to take the time difference into account but they have to do that now. Times in the TV Guide would be printed to reflect the local airing (just like they do now). (Inter)National media (radio/TV) can safely announce the time without confusing anyone.

    It would greatly simplify a lot of things. When you travel you never have to change your watch. New Years would happen simultaneously all over the world. When you set up a teleconference between people in Frankfurt, London, New York, Los Angeles and Tokyo you just tell everyone it starts at 5:00 pm, you don't have to waste time calculating time zones (or worrying about who does or doesn't use daylight saving time). Sure that's in the evening for some people and early morning for others but you can't avoid that unless you do something about the world being round first.

    The reason we won't do it is because the date would change at different times of the day in different places around the earth. It would happen in the middle of the night, in the morning, in the afternoon, or in the evening depending on where you live. I don't think it would actually be a problem (we handle the date changing everyday at night now, so what it it happened at lunch time?) but I'm sure there are too many morons out there who wouldn't scream and complain for it ever to get passed.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  236. Survival values by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    "Resource exhaustion is economically impossible."

    History shows that the human race is perfectly capable of exhausting finite resources, despite common sense and economic pressures to the contrary. Species get killed off, local arable land gets over-farmed into wasteland, local food supply is insufficient and famine sets in, local population strains living space/facilities and crime/disease sets in, etc.

    Sure, all these problems become self-correcting, given enough time. As long as we're limited on one planet, all problems are self-correcting. We either learn to live on this planet, or we die. So far, we haven't taken over ever square inch of the planet, so problems have always been local. I suppose we can wait until all problems become global.

    The problem is I, for one, don't want to live in a dystopian nightmare vision of a world. I like clean air and forests and open spaces and clear water and natural habitats and all that stuff. I also like not killing each other over food and water and oil. I am of the opinion that we can, indeed, sustain something much like our current standard of living without turning the whole planet into a cesspool or open mine pit.

    It's also worth pointing out that economic factors are not the only ones at play in the real world. For that matter, people don't always make rational decisions. Real-world economics also lag behind models because information and resources both take time to transit.

    "When oil gets expensive, people will find substitutes."

    Substitutes? Sure. Equivalents? Maybe so, but possibly not. It's foolhardy to think we can invent our way out of every possible problem. Sure, we can go back to stone knives and bear skins if have to, but again, do we want to?

    To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: There are things that have survival value, and then there are things that give value to survival.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  237. Lets go metric! by stfvon007 · · Score: 1

    Divide the day into 100 hours (each about 14 minutes long), each of those divide into 100 minutes (each about 8.5 seconds long) and those divide into 100 seconds.

    the time can then be read as ##:##:## going from 00:00:00 to 99:99:99 (though people will probaly use 10 seconds as a base for counting)

    For daylight savings time/ leap seconds / leap hours have an option after the clock is set back that shows how many times that time has been reached(87:69:54::0 87:69:54::1) showing that the clock was set back, making it easier for computer equipment to deal with the concept of leap seconds/hours and adjust to time zone changes (this would probably only be of interest to electronics that keep time, not people)

    --
    All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
  238. Negative effect to some radio stations by Announcer · · Score: 1

    I work for a Daytime-only AM station. This is going to take away a whole hour of broadcast time in the morning, which is where peak listenership occurs. Since our broadcast schedule is based on actual sunrise/set times, this change really hurts us.

    Sure, the FCC can make an adjustment to the rules to allow us to still sign-on earlier with reduced power, but when you have a 50,000 watt station blasting into your coverage area due to reflection from the ionosphere at night. (See WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_wave ) As a result, that low-power operation might cover the handful of listeners within a mile of your transmitter.

    Many AM radio stations either change their antenna patterns or their transmitter power based on sunrise and set times. There are still a number of us that have no nighttime operation at all. In winter, for example, we sign-on at 7:15 am, and off at 5pm.

    Right now, the schedule permits us to sign-on at 6am in March. With this change, that would change to 7am. In November, we currently sign-on at 6:45. That would become 7:45!

    I wish they'd just leave well enough alone. Can this portion of the bill be repealed before it takes effect???

    --
    Willie...
  239. Waaah, waaaaah! by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    Jesus fucking Christ, it's not the end of the world. The whole concept of Daylight Saving Time is irritating in the first place, but it's not that much work to remember to set your various devices manually. Or in the case of devices like (most) cell phones that pull time info from a central server, it's not that hard to adjust the difference centrally.

  240. just plain bad idea. by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    Ever been billed for an extra hour of online time 'cause you were on on spring forward night?

    I also recall the story of a fellow with a timer in his car that went off an hour early, due to a time zone differance.

    Fortunetly, the clock was hooked to a car bomb, and so he got blown up miles away from the target in the middle of nowhere.

    Clearly, this change is intended to protect us from terrorists.

  241. What about the curtains??! by bir0 · · Score: 1

    Here in Queensland, Australia, we don't have daylight savings time like the other states on the east coast because it would fade the curtains. Or the cows wouldn't know what time to give milk, or the farmers would have to get up an hour earlier or something like that. Keep in mind the Queensland Government has given our state the new slogan, 'The Smart State'.

    The here is Queensland we would benefit from daylight savings because we don't really have a twilight, it is just light, then dark pretty quickly. Whereas further south in the states that do have daylight savings such as Melbourne, Victoria, they have a longer twilight and have daylight savings so it is not totally dark until 9pm or so.

  242. Havoc with gadgets? Why so? by bigt_littleodd · · Score: 1

    Most of the techie widgets I have make use of NTP anyway. Those that don't can be OS or firmware updated on the fly to account for the the DST changes long before the spring of 2007. By this I mean my TiVo, computer OSes, and my Symbian-based cellphone.

    So what if my eight-year-old Hitachi VCR can't adapt to the change in regulations? Big deal! All I use it for now is to provide my kids with additional ports for the PS2. It doesn't care what time it is.

    --
    Let's play Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'll be Pestilence.
  243. I have to say that after reading that article by multiplexo · · Score: 1

    that I'm really creeped out and pissed off about the social engineering aspects of DST. The government decided to save energy by making you go to bed earlier. Fuck you bastards. I'm still going to stay up until midnight and get up at 7:30AM. Regardless of what fucking time of year it is. Bastards.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  244. Energy saving? by Casandro · · Score: 1

    Uhm, has any energy be saved yet? It seems to me that all the costs assosiated with it greatly overweight the hypothetical savings.

    I personally expect this to be the far greater problem that Y2K.

    Just imagine the power grid, when 2 devices get a command they should execute at 08:00 and one of those devices accepts daylight-saving, the other one doesn't. The nice thing about it is that that error is likely to be not detected that quickly.

    I personally think it's foolish to make any changes on the daylight saving, other than to get rid of it completely. It's a clear sign that there seem to be at least some people in power, who must have lost their minds. :)

  245. Caesar Said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, not Julius, and not really even the Caesar I'm quoting, but Tiberius Claudius Nero Caesar Drusus, the fourth Emperor of Rome was quoted by Robert Graves as having stated "Although a republican by heart, before restoring the republic, I must take advantage of being emperor in that only an emperor can change the calendar or the alphabet and expect it to take" or something along those lines.

    Claudius in the Claudius novels by Robert Graves was protrayed as an emperor that could find humor in his own faults. He felt that although he didn't find himself a true leader, the position of emperor granted him several real benefits. Graves made it seem that Claudius considered it to be true power when he could suggest changes to the alphabet and shortly afterward even grafitti on the streets would use the character in slang. After all the senate could be forced by fear to use the new letters, but the street artists do it purely by choice.

    His feelings regarding the calendar was that only a king or an emperor had the ability to suggest the changes and be taken seriously since only if the senate were united in fear for their lives could a man suggest a change which others find meaningless. Although the changes would be logical, but if a senator suggested the change, then senate would bicker over the change until the issue disappeared.

    Well, so far, as an American outside of America, I've found myself regularly upset or needed to defend my home when people refered to the US as an Empire and although I've never liked Georgy, I try to point out that the American president isn't as powerful as everyone thinks he is. Well, I've just lost my ground completely.

    Georgy has become Emperor.

    P.S. - How long before he allows the senate to build him a temple where he'll be prayed to as a god?

  246. World examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi,

    I don't really understand all this fear on adopting DSTs (daylight savings time). There are plenty of examples in the world.

    One of the most difficult examples is Brazil. Here we have DST all years and in all years the DST agenda changes, acording to the decisions of our government. So, every year I have to edit a zone file, compile it and install it on about 25 servers! And I had no time to develop something more automatic.

    2 times a year we must check all our devices that have a clock and correct it's time. It's not easy but also it's not the end of the world!

  247. In Soviet Russsia... by ru_Baka · · Score: 1

    ... (AFAIR, in 1918), they just did it: they set the clock one hour ahead (for daylight saving for the whole year).
    But now we (in non-Soviet Russia) have DST in addition to that hour.

  248. I think, the real reason of changing clocks... by ru_Baka · · Score: 1

    ... is feeling of "ruling Time/Sun": "I can tell Sun when to rise or set". (It is only almost a joke. A couple of years ago, my city was moved from GMT(or UTC?)+7 to GMT+6 without any rational reason (The "reason" from local authorities was that it was 2p.m. at the time of "real" noon). )
    Another funny thing (but not a joke) about my city and the Time is that some time ago, the city was in two time zones simultaneously (different time zones for different banks of the river).

  249. Authority to change the world time zones? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

    so how many states dropping DST alltogether would eliminate the proposed savings?

    and why does our congress have the authority to change the worlds time zones? after all, all of these timezones they plan to change extend into Canada, and the time zone they live in extends into South America.
    S.America doesn't observes daylight savings time now, but Canada does, correct? (since much of SAmerica is in the southern Hemisphere, I am guessing many would have to set ahead when US sets backward anyway)

    writing this from AZ, I hope this bill would cause most states to opt out of Daylight savings all-together (I guarantee many states would take this time to consider opting out altogether anyway.)

  250. Re:Freemasons, Illuminati, and the True Origin of by pjp6259 · · Score: 1

    Congratulations on actually being funny. 90% of the funny mods here are given to posts that are played out jokes, or just plain stupid. If only there was a way to filter out the stuff that is marked funny, but actually isn't... maybe some kind of peer rating system like credence

    --
    Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
  251. that doesn't make any sense by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    Recycling of most things (glass, paper, plastic) is costly, dirty, wasteful work.

    If it cost more to recycle than to use raw materials, companies wouldn't do it.

    Ignoring the fact that recycled plastic costs much more than newly manufactured stuff, even after our government subsidies the recycling plants, the process of recycling plastic introduces many chemicals into the environment as or more dangerous than would be had by throwing it away and making a new one.

    And this is based on...what exactly? I'm skeptical of this argument, the same one used against recycling paper. Are you basing your comparison on breaking down the materials and using them for cheaper products, or are you using the most expensive processing available?

  252. Just in case your still reading this thread by MorePower · · Score: 1

    I work in the power generation industry, and I devide my time between new installations and maintenance/repair.

    New unit installation is basically a construction job, and those almost always start at first light, usually to get the most work done possible during daylight. They rarely stick to 8-hour days, 10 or 12 hour days are more common, pretty much trying to get everything possible done in daylight (since outdoor lighting is expensive and not nearly as effective as sunlight)

    In maintencance/repair situations, I deal with the permanant crews that cover the plant 24/7. Most either run three 8-hour shifts or two 12-hour ones. Either way 7:00am is the standard start of first shift.

    Office jobs are the only ones I see or deal with that start at 9:00ish, unfortunately I discovered the hard way the cubicle/office work makes me practically suicidal within 6-months. The movie 'Office Space' isn't a comedy, it's a documentary!

  253. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    I beg to disagree but a lot of demand is artificial too. A lot of people need to be told what to want, because they can't think for themselves, and they go around like a herd of lemmings, following the latest trends.

    Not to categorize people, or belittle some as dumb, as opposed to you and me, who are wise, because everyone has a that trend following side to themselves, follow the flock, do as others do, including you and me. It's part of being human, otherwise there is no society, people that don't follow any trends ever don't get to cooperate. For instance, you could call scientific experiments, faith in the scientific method a trend, together with the written word from even thousands of years ago (e.g. Euclid), a human cooperation of a massive scale. It's nothing more than a belief system, a trend, because you put your belief in repeatablity of experiments, faith into - as Wittgenstein said it, "that the sun will rise tomorrow - is only a hypothesis." Nothing assures you, and some religion will come by and say science is an illusion, reality is an illusion, and tomorrow all science will end, and you shall be judged by your adherence to these religious rules this guy is preaching you. You may say, I won't adhere, I'd rather wait and see, and he'll say just watch, you'll be sorry. Or, you can adhere, saying, what do I got to lose if the the world truly ends tomorrow and I shall be judged because I didn't follow what this guy told me? What if he's right? A lot of belief systems prey on people with such techniques. At least doubt is at the core of science - It's the religion of doubt, the faith of doubting, the faith in not having faith, the faith of minimizing or optimizing faith, leaving as few pillars you stand on based on faith as possible. Faith is a very precious commodity you shouldn't throw around too easily. Still, as far as following trends goes, the scientific method has a lot of followers, because so far so good, look at the big picture, we got the steam engine, we got computers, eyeglasses, we get to look at Jupiter's moons, and keep our asses warm by running that nukular powerplant a couple miles down that way. For those opposing science and technology, I think it beats having to set a fire inside a cave, and eating meat you killed with your untechnological stone tools, because you didn't sow crops to harvest.

    Still, when marching along, following trends, most often only when you've got a taste, when you walked down a path with a flock for a while - give everything a chance - do you come to a full hault and say: I gotta stop, something's not right, look at the big picture. It takes a while to wake up, until it's too late, and those who dare not sleepwalk and wake up early, get axed by the sheperds who are the religious high priests of the current trend, the current belief system.

    There is of course the other side to even the scientific "vogue." Not the doubting part, because the following is a doubting of even the method of doubting. More exactly, the method of doubting gives you success and benefits, but the problem is failing to doubt the benefit of benefits, or, in other words, the drawback of too much, too sudden success without corresponding checks and balances. (My condolances go to all people who win the lottery, and are unable to behave like, say Bill Gates did, when he first became a billionare, and took the reporters to McDonalds over it, wearing jeans and tennis shoes.) As far as the sudden advances of technology and and science go, without corresponding spiritual advances, where we came to the point of being able to extinguish all life a the push of a button, there are some people that say halt, let's think here for a minute. Ted Kaczynski, for all the sickness he is, he's got another side to him, he's got a point. Look at the amish as a much better example of how to tame technology, how to tame science, how to say halt, let's think first before we dive head first down that cliff.

    The "free market religion" is no different from a trend. Regarding the fallacy of the br

  254. Re:I offer you my consulting services. by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    Forgot one thing, as far as artificial demand goes. They say the really good salesman is not someone who can sell you something you want to buy, but one who can sell you something you wouldn't want to buy in the first place. Yeah, how many salespeople have a "creed," a sort of "hippocratic oath," to seek out and get to know a person, and only sell them what they truly need, to become sort of people-knowers, psychologists, instead of abusing their position of power over their target, their power to influence them. Asking for such a creed is foolish, after all, happiness can be generated by telling you something will make you happy, and you believing in that. Placebos cure ilnesses, even though they have a lot of side effects. Any drug company will tell you that. Value and demand is something that's unfixed, fluctuates a lot, because perception fluctuates a lot. If your perception of the value of some goods is artificially increased, your happiness is increased too, even if artificially. Tell me lies, sweet little lies often beats getting the cold hard truth in your face all the time. Did you know that you're special? (Psst, so is everyone else.) Happiness, even artificial happiness, matters. Honey, do these clothes make me look fat? What is your answer? Artificial happiness? Artificial demand? Artificial piles of waste? Why can't we create artificial happiness without the artificial waste piles?