And if your job is simply drive the ship into international waters and then sink it there, then you have no problem.
But if you are planing actually taking it into another countries territorial waters to... oh, I don't know... load/unload cargo - you've just broken couple of dozen laws. Even more when you dock. Have fun in a foreign prison, while the ship gets impounded.
Oh yeah, dealing with that will be MUCH simpler than paying ransom to pirates.
You will be arrested at your next port of call. Which part of "illegal automatic weapons" did you not comprehend?
As for the morality - I am talking about your Joe Average not being a coldhearted killer. Being social and tribal animals, most of us are actually empathic towards other humans, regardless of their orientation towards us. It hurts you when you hurt another human being. Unless you're a psychopath.
That is why actual shooting is a very small part of basic infantry training. You are not there to learn to shoot - you are there to learn to FOLLOW ORDERS WITHOUT THINKING OR QUESTIONING. Shoot when told and shoot to kill - every time. And it takes a bit of an effort to override millenia of evolution and to condition your Joe Average into a G.I. Joe. And even then, they may be unable to actually shoot someone.
So you would either first have to train your civilian mariners to be killers, and then deal with the problem of releasing them on your streets with PTSD they picked up along the way, or you can just as well give them brooms instead of guns. Cause they will shoot into the sky, into the sea, into the deck - just not into another human being.
Killing people is illegal, and that in most of the world "but they started it first" is NOT a valid excuse?
Also, gun license from one country is just a piece of paper in another. And most countries don't allow civilians to own automatic weapons. Go tell your crew "Oh yeah... when you get to your destination you will all be arrested, ship will impounded and you will all end up in jail. BTW, we don't have a consulate in that particular country. Also, their police might just shoot you to be on the safe side. Good luck and safe sailing."
And then there is all that morality of killing another person thing. See... not everyone grows up to be Jared Lee Loughner.
"Sunglasses wouldn't help," he says – in fact, wearing them would only exacerbate the effect. That's because the glasses would not affect the green laser light – chosen because that colour is particularly irritating – but the laser would appear even brighter contrasted against the darkened background.
I'm guessing they think that people who can put their hands on automatic weapons and RPGs, sales and purchasing of which is regulated/prohibited in most of the world - won't be able to put their hands on some $25 protective glasses sales and purchasing of which is not regulated/prohibited anywhere in the world.
See, if there was a law banning guns it wouldn't just say "Can't have guns. Period.". Instead, it would describe in detail what KIND of guns, NUMBER of guns, right down to type and number of rounds of ammo you may have in your possession legally.
Then, as I imagine that this would be a brand new law and as such a part of a heavily promoted campaign - there would be collection locations where you could bring in your illegal guns and ammo for collection and later destruction, with full amnesty for possessing now illegal guns and ammo. There would be a certain set date after which you would no longer be able to do that freely - there would be at least some kind of a fine for not doing that earlier. But that would depend on the actual law. Naturally, if it turns out your gun was used to commit a crime, you WOULD be questioned and possibly charged for that offense(s).
Then, after that date passes - police would get their lists of known owners of guns and start going door to door. Don't worry, they would all have warrants to search your house, car, boat, log cabin etc. - as there is a strong probability that where there is one gun, there are also more guns.
Naturally, that would all go in as civilized way as possible - until some "from my cold dead hands" nut opens fire on police. From then on, each search would probably be done with expectation of turning into a siege. Also, you can forget about a fine at this point. Every single illegal piece of ammo would warrant the maximum penalty as described by law - if you decide to "duke it out" with the police.
After a while, the campaign would end, the lists of known and suspected gun owners would be all checked, and from that point on it would be just like it is today regarding illegal drugs.
With the difference that it would be far easier to purchase and posses illegal drugs than illegal guns and ammo - as drugs don't make a loud sound when used, they generally take up lot less space so they are easier to conceal AND it may prove difficult to flush an AK down the drain should someone knock on your door late at night.
You are trading in the possibility of your own countrymen turning against for the certainty (clearly YOU are certain about that) of "them furners" killing you in your sleep? How do you know that they don't have flamethrowers too?
Do you too have a youtube channel where you rant against the guberment trying to confuse you with "grammer" and about your plans to create your own currency? Only with blackjack. And hookers.
It seems that he did go on a rant couple of months ago. Except, it seems to have been a kind of a rant that would/should have attracted attention of a trained psychologist.
Too bad he just yelled at the emptiness of the internet, instead of at say... other humans.
Leftists tend not to list "Mein Kampf" among their favorite books. Or anything written by Ayn Rand. Particularly not THAT book. Unstable "gonna fix the guberment myself" gun-nuts on the other hand...
Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.
If anything, the list screams "I just want to be a kid!" and "I need a strong male role model" while questioning morality of the world order.
Also, videos are apparently a manifesto of a an anti-grammar-Nazi.
If only you and your people had some kind of an organized, trained and heavily equipped and armed group whose job and duty would be to defend you from foreign and domestic enemies. Or some trained and armed group that would investigate and possibly prevent any such attack. Or even organized and trained professionals who would patrol and control your countries borders.
Fuck son... What kind of a poor excuse for a country do you live in, where you must be your own army, police and border guard? What happens when you go to sleep? You get robbed and killed each night?
Also, color correction was applied to the special editions, and what's on the DVD has as close to the original film color as can be done on that medium, while the original versions suffer from lossy color conversions.
Actually, back when special editions came out on DVD I ripped the DVDs to make myself an "as high as possible quality" backup of each movie.
Good god, was the color fucked up. The entire video stream was "burned", saturation was boosted way up, and that is AFTER you look over the fact that Vader's saber was pink in the special edition.
I'm guessing that whoever did mastering used as big a monitor as possible with brightness turned on to maximum, in a completely darkened room. Whatever it was, it sure was not a calibrated 21" Trinitron (or any other monitor I tried it out) or your average TV.
Oh, the data was still there. You just couldn't see it after all that "color correction" they did. Every single scene that has space in the background - on DVD the space looks pitch black. Fix the levels a bit (or turn the brightness on to max and dim the lights) and voila - it's full of stars.
# Applies to U.S. delivery addresses in the 50 states only, including Alaska and Hawaii. Geographic shipping restrictions may apply to particular products; for example, some Tools & Hardware items may not be shipped to Alaska and Hawaii using FREE Super Saver Shipping. # Applies to APO/FPO addresses when using a United States ZIP Code only.
Lucas also went on to explain that the original trilogy films included on the Blu-Ray release will be the remastered special editions.
Releasing the originals is kind of an oxymoron because the quality of the original is not very good. You have to go through and do a whole restoration on it, and you have to do that digitally. It’s a very, very expensive process to do it. So when we did the transfer to digital, we only transferred really the upgraded version.
In other words, no ORIGINAL original trilogy, cause that would mean some "people" would actually have to be "hired" to do some "work" on those and they would presumably require to be "paid" in return.
But have no fear. Few years down the road, and Lucas will have his slaves do that for free. Or for more actual coffee in their coffee and an additional bathroom brake. Cause nothing is too good for his slaves if it will help sell everyone yet another "very, very expensive" set of plastic discs.
So, you get 3 extra discs in the complete set for 1 cent more, and you save on the shipping if you don't want or don't qualify for the FREE_Super_Saver_ShippingTM.
And how exactly is this anything close to the same thing as "throwing cash into a fireplace"
It does nothing useful for almost anyone (well... a small number of people would get a very expensive heating system) and all it does is produce pollution.
the reason money exists, is to purchase time/work from somebody. $500M would potentially allow hundreds of people to earn a living for a time, stimulate an economy that globally is stagnating, and would produce results that people would for hundreds of years be able to say "we accomplished that" or "we helped fund that".
Those people will not starve without this project.If anything, this project would take away their valuable time and resources. Also, idi... I mean author of the "article" pulled all of the numbers from his as... I mean thin air.
You want a project you could say "we accomplished that" about? Get your buddies and go plant some trees.
it's "saving money" that ends up hurting the current system, not spending it.
Actually... no. It's spending the money you don't have on things you don't need that is hurting the system. You know... like a war or two.. or putting a fucking rock onto another rock. In space. Which is about as artistic as making a photocopy of Mona Lisa. Or taking a snapshot of it with your phone.
On the other hand, NOT spending that money would NOT waste human, technological, monetary and other resources that WILL be needed elsewhere - as people with the knowhow to pull something like that are not actually sitting around on their asses or flipping burgers at the local grill. Nor would most of the material and resources be recyclable in any way - even if you have plans for a "put a rock into space" industry.
And the FACT that this will never be done (definitely not in the way it was proposed to be done) proves beyond doubt that there are more important things to spend/waste/save money on.
That and the earplugs so you don't hear the birds chirping in the morning - and you don't have to get up at all as you won't hear the alarm in time to get to work anyway.
The planet and most of living things on it don't give a fuck about OUR way of measuring time. Daylight Saving Time is US adapting to our ecosystem in order to get more out of the deal - not the other way around.
So you are advocating Dodo Saving Time instead? I.e. Saving something that isn't there anymore.
See... In the spring, when the DST starts there are 13-14 hours of daytime. In the winter there are 9.
So, in the spring there IS something to be SAVED from being WASTED. In the winter though... unless you want to shift the clock around 6 hours or so, or take up a night-time job - there is no other way you will get much use of such a small amount of daylight.
In fact, the way it is now IS the best possible use of it - people get some natural light as they are going to work, it wakes them up and it reduces the chance for a lot of them to fall asleep behind a wheel. And it is not like you're gonna go onto long walks after work - sunlight or not. Everything is either frozen over, snowed over, slippery or wet and muddy.
Also, that morning shot of daylight reduces depression before being chained to your desk for the next 8-9 hours. As such, it greatly reduces the chance for people to find themselves on the business end of a shotgun wielded by a colleague who "simply couldn't take it any more".
We lose light at both ends of the day, and an extra hour in the morning doesn't make much difference.
No. Daylight isn't gained or lost equally on both ends during the year.
After the winter solstice we are actually gaining daylight - but on the sunset end. At the same time, we are still losing daylight in the morning, only slower. Then, after the spring equinox we start gaining a lot more MORNING light. Without DST it would dawn at 3:30 in the summer, and it would still get dark only after 8 PM.
That is why it is called Daylight SAVING Time. There is an excess of daylight in the morning during the spring and summer months and it would be going to WASTE without DST. And again, in the winter and fall there is no such "daylight surplus" to be saved. We are actually 3-4 hours short during those months.
Just as we start to lose our evening daylight hours in the fall, along comes the DST change to rob yet another hour of usable light.
One... THAT is not the DST. That is the "regular time" you are complaining about. Two... If the DST was kept on the whole year round, the sun wouldn't rise 'till 8 or 9 in the morning in December-January. And the night would keep on falling earlier and earlier anyway, all the way until the winter solstice when the day would start getting longer again - not that you would really notice the change until mid-February.
A fine thing that would be for the working people. Seeing sunlight only on weekends during most of the winter.
You have to adjust your wardrobe more times a year than that - and that doesn't get you more sleep time. And better too, as it gets you more "dark time" in the morning during half a year. And me... well... me, I like sleepin'...
Sure it does if it starts to dawn at 4 in the morning. Or 3:30.
If you are supposed to get up at 7 or even 8, that is the difference between being half asleep for the last two hours of sleeping and being already wide awake an hour before you need to get up.
And if your daily rituals depend on being at a certain place at 8 or 9 (and not earlier) and staying there until 16 or 17 (and maybe later) - that hour of sleep MAY be somewhat important to you.
Slashdot Mirror
And if your job is simply drive the ship into international waters and then sink it there, then you have no problem.
But if you are planing actually taking it into another countries territorial waters to... oh, I don't know... load/unload cargo - you've just broken couple of dozen laws.
Even more when you dock. Have fun in a foreign prison, while the ship gets impounded.
Oh yeah, dealing with that will be MUCH simpler than paying ransom to pirates.
You will be arrested at your next port of call. Which part of "illegal automatic weapons" did you not comprehend?
As for the morality - I am talking about your Joe Average not being a coldhearted killer.
Being social and tribal animals, most of us are actually empathic towards other humans, regardless of their orientation towards us.
It hurts you when you hurt another human being. Unless you're a psychopath.
That is why actual shooting is a very small part of basic infantry training.
You are not there to learn to shoot - you are there to learn to FOLLOW ORDERS WITHOUT THINKING OR QUESTIONING.
Shoot when told and shoot to kill - every time.
And it takes a bit of an effort to override millenia of evolution and to condition your Joe Average into a G.I. Joe. And even then, they may be unable to actually shoot someone.
So you would either first have to train your civilian mariners to be killers, and then deal with the problem of releasing them on your streets with PTSD they picked up along the way, or you can just as well give them brooms instead of guns.
Cause they will shoot into the sky, into the sea, into the deck - just not into another human being.
Killing people is illegal, and that in most of the world "but they started it first" is NOT a valid excuse?
Also, gun license from one country is just a piece of paper in another. And most countries don't allow civilians to own automatic weapons.
Go tell your crew "Oh yeah... when you get to your destination you will all be arrested, ship will impounded and you will all end up in jail. BTW, we don't have a consulate in that particular country. Also, their police might just shoot you to be on the safe side. Good luck and safe sailing."
And then there is all that morality of killing another person thing. See... not everyone grows up to be Jared Lee Loughner.
From TFA:
"Sunglasses wouldn't help," he says – in fact, wearing them would only exacerbate the effect. That's because the glasses would not affect the green laser light – chosen because that colour is particularly irritating – but the laser would appear even brighter contrasted against the darkened background.
I'm guessing they think that people who can put their hands on automatic weapons and RPGs, sales and purchasing of which is regulated/prohibited in most of the world - won't be able to put their hands on some $25 protective glasses sales and purchasing of which is not regulated/prohibited anywhere in the world.
See, if there was a law banning guns it wouldn't just say "Can't have guns. Period.".
Instead, it would describe in detail what KIND of guns, NUMBER of guns, right down to type and number of rounds of ammo you may have in your possession legally.
Then, as I imagine that this would be a brand new law and as such a part of a heavily promoted campaign - there would be collection locations where you could bring in your illegal guns and ammo for collection and later destruction, with full amnesty for possessing now illegal guns and ammo.
There would be a certain set date after which you would no longer be able to do that freely - there would be at least some kind of a fine for not doing that earlier.
But that would depend on the actual law.
Naturally, if it turns out your gun was used to commit a crime, you WOULD be questioned and possibly charged for that offense(s).
Then, after that date passes - police would get their lists of known owners of guns and start going door to door.
Don't worry, they would all have warrants to search your house, car, boat, log cabin etc. - as there is a strong probability that where there is one gun, there are also more guns.
Naturally, that would all go in as civilized way as possible - until some "from my cold dead hands" nut opens fire on police.
From then on, each search would probably be done with expectation of turning into a siege.
Also, you can forget about a fine at this point. Every single illegal piece of ammo would warrant the maximum penalty as described by law - if you decide to "duke it out" with the police.
After a while, the campaign would end, the lists of known and suspected gun owners would be all checked, and from that point on it would be just like it is today regarding illegal drugs.
With the difference that it would be far easier to purchase and posses illegal drugs than illegal guns and ammo - as drugs don't make a loud sound when used, they generally take up lot less space so they are easier to conceal AND it may prove difficult to flush an AK down the drain should someone knock on your door late at night.
You are trading in the possibility of your own countrymen turning against for the certainty (clearly YOU are certain about that) of "them furners" killing you in your sleep?
How do you know that they don't have flamethrowers too?
Do you too have a youtube channel where you rant against the guberment trying to confuse you with "grammer" and about your plans to create your own currency?
Only with blackjack. And hookers.
It seems that he did go on a rant couple of months ago.
Except, it seems to have been a kind of a rant that would/should have attracted attention of a trained psychologist.
Too bad he just yelled at the emptiness of the internet, instead of at say... other humans.
Leftists tend not to list "Mein Kampf" among their favorite books. Or anything written by Ayn Rand. Particularly not THAT book.
Unstable "gonna fix the guberment myself" gun-nuts on the other hand...
Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.
If anything, the list screams "I just want to be a kid!" and "I need a strong male role model" while questioning morality of the world order.
Also, videos are apparently a manifesto of a an anti-grammar-Nazi.
If only you and your people had some kind of an organized, trained and heavily equipped and armed group whose job and duty would be to defend you from foreign and domestic enemies.
Or some trained and armed group that would investigate and possibly prevent any such attack.
Or even organized and trained professionals who would patrol and control your countries borders.
Fuck son...
What kind of a poor excuse for a country do you live in, where you must be your own army, police and border guard?
What happens when you go to sleep? You get robbed and killed each night?
Is that what you are saying?
As video games had in the Columbine High School shooting, and it should be given EXACTLY as much air-time and attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKNrK53uA84
Also, color correction was applied to the special editions, and what's on the DVD has as close to the original film color as can be done on that medium, while the original versions suffer from lossy color conversions.
Actually, back when special editions came out on DVD I ripped the DVDs to make myself an "as high as possible quality" backup of each movie.
Good god, was the color fucked up.
The entire video stream was "burned", saturation was boosted way up, and that is AFTER you look over the fact that Vader's saber was pink in the special edition.
I'm guessing that whoever did mastering used as big a monitor as possible with brightness turned on to maximum, in a completely darkened room.
Whatever it was, it sure was not a calibrated 21" Trinitron (or any other monitor I tried it out) or your average TV.
Oh, the data was still there. You just couldn't see it after all that "color correction" they did.
Every single scene that has space in the background - on DVD the space looks pitch black.
Fix the levels a bit (or turn the brightness on to max and dim the lights) and voila - it's full of stars.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=mk_sss_dp_1?ie=UTF8&nodeId=527692&pop-up=1
# Applies to U.S. delivery addresses in the 50 states only, including Alaska and Hawaii.
Geographic shipping restrictions may apply to particular products; for example, some Tools & Hardware items may not be shipped to Alaska and Hawaii using FREE Super Saver Shipping.
# Applies to APO/FPO addresses when using a United States ZIP Code only.
It was hand-waved months ago, when they first made the announcement.
http://geektyrant.com/news/2010/8/14/george-lucas-star-wars-blu-ray-coming-in-2011-and-watch-a-de.html
Lucas also went on to explain that the original trilogy films included on the Blu-Ray release will be the remastered special editions.
Releasing the originals is kind of an oxymoron because the quality of the original is not very good. You have to go through and do a whole restoration on it, and you have to do that digitally. It’s a very, very expensive process to do it. So when we did the transfer to digital, we only transferred really the upgraded version.
In other words, no ORIGINAL original trilogy, cause that would mean some "people" would actually have to be "hired" to do some "work" on those and they would presumably require to be "paid" in return.
But have no fear. Few years down the road, and Lucas will have his slaves do that for free.
Or for more actual coffee in their coffee and an additional bathroom brake.
Cause nothing is too good for his slaves if it will help sell everyone yet another "very, very expensive" set of plastic discs.
Just checked on amazon.
Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Episodes I-VI) [Blu-ray] comes with 9 discs - for $89.99.
Star Wars: The Original Trilogy (Episodes IV - VI) [Blu-ray] and Star Wars: The Prequel Trilogy (Episodes I - III) [Blu-ray] are both 3 disc sets for $44.99 each.
So, you get 3 extra discs in the complete set for 1 cent more, and you save on the shipping if you don't want or don't qualify for the FREE_Super_Saver_ShippingTM.
My guess is that you save on postage when buying the 6-in-1 bundle online as most shops (Amazon definitely) charge per shipment AND per item postage.
And how exactly is this anything close to the same thing as "throwing cash into a fireplace"
It does nothing useful for almost anyone (well... a small number of people would get a very expensive heating system) and all it does is produce pollution.
the reason money exists, is to purchase time/work from somebody. $500M would potentially allow hundreds of people to earn a living for a time, stimulate an economy that globally is stagnating, and would produce results that people would for hundreds of years be able to say "we accomplished that" or "we helped fund that".
Those people will not starve without this project.If anything, this project would take away their valuable time and resources.
Also, idi... I mean author of the "article" pulled all of the numbers from his as... I mean thin air.
You want a project you could say "we accomplished that" about? Get your buddies and go plant some trees.
it's "saving money" that ends up hurting the current system, not spending it.
Actually... no. It's spending the money you don't have on things you don't need that is hurting the system. You know... like a war or two.. or putting a fucking rock onto another rock. In space.
Which is about as artistic as making a photocopy of Mona Lisa. Or taking a snapshot of it with your phone.
On the other hand, NOT spending that money would NOT waste human, technological, monetary and other resources that WILL be needed elsewhere - as people with the knowhow to pull something like that are not actually sitting around on their asses or flipping burgers at the local grill.
Nor would most of the material and resources be recyclable in any way - even if you have plans for a "put a rock into space" industry.
And the FACT that this will never be done (definitely not in the way it was proposed to be done) proves beyond doubt that there are more important things to spend/waste/save money on.
Inside the station they walk at normal pace and what appears to be Earth gravity.
Outside everyone moves in slow motion.
Also, no delay in telecommunication.
That and the earplugs so you don't hear the birds chirping in the morning - and you don't have to get up at all as you won't hear the alarm in time to get to work anyway.
The planet and most of living things on it don't give a fuck about OUR way of measuring time.
Daylight Saving Time is US adapting to our ecosystem in order to get more out of the deal - not the other way around.
So you are advocating Dodo Saving Time instead? I.e. Saving something that isn't there anymore.
See... In the spring, when the DST starts there are 13-14 hours of daytime. In the winter there are 9.
So, in the spring there IS something to be SAVED from being WASTED.
In the winter though... unless you want to shift the clock around 6 hours or so, or take up a night-time job - there is no other way you will get much use of such a small amount of daylight.
In fact, the way it is now IS the best possible use of it - people get some natural light as they are going to work, it wakes them up and it reduces the chance for a lot of them to fall asleep behind a wheel.
And it is not like you're gonna go onto long walks after work - sunlight or not. Everything is either frozen over, snowed over, slippery or wet and muddy.
Also, that morning shot of daylight reduces depression before being chained to your desk for the next 8-9 hours.
As such, it greatly reduces the chance for people to find themselves on the business end of a shotgun wielded by a colleague who "simply couldn't take it any more".
We lose light at both ends of the day, and an extra hour in the morning doesn't make much difference.
No. Daylight isn't gained or lost equally on both ends during the year.
After the winter solstice we are actually gaining daylight - but on the sunset end. At the same time, we are still losing daylight in the morning, only slower.
Then, after the spring equinox we start gaining a lot more MORNING light. Without DST it would dawn at 3:30 in the summer, and it would still get dark only after 8 PM.
That is why it is called Daylight SAVING Time.
There is an excess of daylight in the morning during the spring and summer months and it would be going to WASTE without DST.
And again, in the winter and fall there is no such "daylight surplus" to be saved. We are actually 3-4 hours short during those months.
Just as we start to lose our evening daylight hours in the fall, along comes the DST change to rob yet another hour of usable light.
One... THAT is not the DST. That is the "regular time" you are complaining about.
Two... If the DST was kept on the whole year round, the sun wouldn't rise 'till 8 or 9 in the morning in December-January.
And the night would keep on falling earlier and earlier anyway, all the way until the winter solstice when the day would start getting longer again - not that you would really notice the change until mid-February.
A fine thing that would be for the working people. Seeing sunlight only on weekends during most of the winter.
I thought it only happens twice a year.
You have to adjust your wardrobe more times a year than that - and that doesn't get you more sleep time. And better too, as it gets you more "dark time" in the morning during half a year.
And me... well... me, I like sleepin'...
Sure it does if it starts to dawn at 4 in the morning. Or 3:30.
If you are supposed to get up at 7 or even 8, that is the difference between being half asleep for the last two hours of sleeping and being already wide awake an hour before you need to get up.
And if your daily rituals depend on being at a certain place at 8 or 9 (and not earlier) and staying there until 16 or 17 (and maybe later) - that hour of sleep MAY be somewhat important to you.
Actually, dawn breaks even earlier at times. With DST even.