Except in a study in Indiana after they became the 48th state to adopt DST in 2006 (where all the population is at least as far north as San Francisco and most are near the northern border of CA in latitude) that showed springing forward immediately increased energy consumption by 1%.
And there is no state in the Union as schizophrenic about time as Indiana. Good luck trying to argue that any change there, better or worse, is independent of all other factors.
If someone isn't in already you can usually find something else to do in the mean time.
Like taking your business elsewhere.
Flex time or no, no business exists in a vacuum. You have customers whose money you want, and you have suppliers whose product you want. And if you can't be bothered to coordinate with both, they will find someone else who can and will.
Thus, if we standardized on one time, you would set your alarm clock earlier in the summer in order to arise earlier in the day. In other words, EXACTLY the same thing you do now, except without the inconvenience of changing clocks twice a year.
Aside from the fact that you're again/still advocating for a return to sundials, why would my employer, my customers, and my suppliers be inclined to synchronize to such gradual and constant shifts along with me?
We know what works in education, but we apparently are unable or unwilling to do it. Take a look at some of the tests from a hundred years ago and try your luck at passing them
We're talking about mathematics, more specifically arithmetic, and you're trying to compare standards from before and after transistorization. Arithmetic "education" in 1900 at that level was drills, drills, and more drills, in an effort to develop not creative thinking but speed and accuracy through the use of arcane tricks and shortcuts. But nobody short of a mentat can compete with a 99 four-function calculator in multiplying multi-digit numbers, let alone something as iterative as calculating a square root. It literally takes more time to fiddle with logarithm tables to find an approximation of a square root than it does to find a potentially exact answer with a calculator.
About the only people today who would have practical use for most of what arithmetic education focused on in 1900 are people who are looking to optimize a compiler.
What does it matter if we happen to live somewhere where the clocks say 7pm when the sun rises?
OK, you first. Evangelize the genius simplicity of your plan by communicating all times exclusively in UTC.
Heck we could even schedule things with the sun like people that work for themselves (farmers, construction etc) already can.
Because these industries are completely isolated from all other economic activities and have no need to communicate times outside their domains?
Besides, everyone has been using mechanical clocks for so long that nobody besides astronomers and navigators remembers just how lousy a timekeeper the sun is.
I live near Toronto sunrise in the winter is ~8am and sunset around 5
It's not about the 2145Z sunsets but the 0930Z sunrises that DST is meant to compensate for. Since you note sunlight is so critical, you should realize the benefits of making sure those hours of daylight (when available) are during waking hours.
so you can literally commute to work in the dark and it is dark by the time you live the office seeing the sun for 0 hrs a day isn't a good thing
Another "you first" opportunity: explain to your employer the benefits of having a 2+ hour lunch, particularly when all of your customers and suppliers don't.
We need to get in the habit of planning work enough that we can wait a couple days for a reply
I note you wrote this less than 90 minutes after this story was posted. Why not (again) lead by example and send your missive off to the editors of a weekly or monthly magazine instead?
Except the population distribution in California is biased towards the lower latitudes, and the savings make themselves more apparent in higher latitudes.
Dell staff state that the palm rest will be replaced by Dell at no cost, but only if the unit is still under warranty.
And what if the warranty expired before Dell decided to acknowledge that this defect was, in fact, a defect?
And if it's something in the manufacturing process, then the ultrabook was defective since day one, the entire time that Dell warrants it was "free of defects." So how is refusing to fix it if the clock has run out not breaching Dell's obligations under the warranty?
This is not exactly instilling confidence in Dell's products and their warranties. Sounds more like something HP would do...
And what argument is that, exactly? This all started with my "stopped clock" metaphor, alluding that even the most untrustworthy sources of information can occasionally turn up something factual/useful. That doesn't change the fact that Vladimir Putin's personal fanzine is only marginally more reliable and/or less biased than Newsmax.
And unlike the RT links provided, at least the National Enquirer actually broke the story on John Edwards. Putting Russia Today on equal footing with that is actually giving it the benefit of the doubt.
A politician who first tried to get the broad study shut down entirely managed to instead add a qualifier where there was none before (i.e. not "this vs. that" but "all vs. some"), hamstringing the project by basing it on a faulty premise (that "cyclical" change merits such a large impact study) and a loaded question (presupposing that there is no other significant source of climate change impacting the state).
You're right, it is politics and I don't like how it's played out. But more importantly it's also a horrible hypothesis.
It also doesn't not say that. When asked for clarification what exactly "cyclical" meant in the bill, everyone with any authority avoided touching that question with a ten-foot pole, saying nothing more to the scientists beyond "Look at the floor debate," where the word "cyclical" was added by someone who first wanted to eliminate the study outright.
Nobody is saying anything. Everybody is making a point of not saying anything. And even if Han had knocked out those shield generators Lando would at least be detecting something...
There are known solar cycles for example. There are known cycles in the Gulf Stream, there is ENSO, etc., etc...
And if the study finds conclusions that the legislature doesn't like, that simply means that the study didn't focus on the right cycles, or enough cycles, or the right combination of cycles. And the study will just have to keep going until the data suits the "hypothesis."
> the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change
It's almost as if someone has proposed a hypothesis to be either validated or rejected by examination.
Except that it would have to be either demonstrable or falsifiable to be a hypothesis. There's no point to "study" the existence of something someone just pulled out of their ass to try to make a political point, especially when there is every indication that the person defining something as ephemeral as "cyclical climate change" will simply claim the study didn't add enough epicycles.
and slings it at twice the trucks speed into your lane so it hits your windshield at 90 meters per second
Which would mean both you and the truck area traveling at around 20 m/s, which is highway speed, which means that you and oncoming traffic are separated by a wide median, a retaining wall, or both.
So in your hypothetical scenario, all these measures fail, and you just happen to be in the path of said gravel coming at you with a relative speed of over 300 km/h. Aside from the ridiculously long odds of being in such a scenario, what's your point? That you would somehow have the superhuman reflexes necessary to avoid a projectile coming at you at nearly 1/3 the speed of sound, whereas a computer would not? And that you could and would do this without jeopardizing traffic around you?
Regardless, best practice is still to stay back out of harm's way, rather than to risk even greater jeopardy to the lives and property of yourself and those around you with your sudden, erratic and unpredictable evasive driving.
Think of the case of a gravel truck that has a loose load.
The good driver would apply the brakes, gas and turn the wheel to make sure the gravel passes harmlessly over or under the car.
The better driver would remember that there was still traffic to the sides and behind him and, rather than hoping they all have better reflexes than he does in dealing with his own sudden braking/accelerating/steering, lets the rock chip the windshield, which is later replaced on-site within 30 minutes, with costs covered entirely by his insurer.
The best driver notes the standardized "STAY BACK" sign on the back of the dump truck and actually stays back.
So when you're driving today you're in a state of being aware of the situation and are engaged with the surroundings.
In theory. In practice you're fucking with the radio while ogling the bicyclist in spandex.
In the event where you need to take an emergency action,
Re-read the summary. The point isn't that autonomous systems are better able to handle emergency situations, but that they don't get into "emergency situations" to begin with.
Since you're so attentive to your surroundings, how often do you count off seconds to gauge your following distance? If you're answer is anything less than "All the time, constantly," you're less attentive than the autonomous system.
Cable companies have a hard enough time providing enough bandwidth for more than a couple HD channels, where are they going to find the bandwidth for 4K Ultra HD?
They can start by charging for analog channels commensurately for the bandwidth they use, rather than giving away the analog stuff they modulate in-house for "free" while charging "extra" for digital content they've nothing to but encrypt.
Not going to speak to the sanity of screen size, but with respect to sitting closer: most people would prefer watching television in a living room rather than a closet.
Slashdot Mirror
A computer-generated, ten year-old goldfish would get thousands of propositioning messages.
RAF? They come from the land that invented plaid.
Except in a study in Indiana after they became the 48th state to adopt DST in 2006 (where all the population is at least as far north as San Francisco and most are near the northern border of CA in latitude) that showed springing forward immediately increased energy consumption by 1%.
And there is no state in the Union as schizophrenic about time as Indiana. Good luck trying to argue that any change there, better or worse, is independent of all other factors.
Like taking your business elsewhere.
Flex time or no, no business exists in a vacuum. You have customers whose money you want, and you have suppliers whose product you want. And if you can't be bothered to coordinate with both, they will find someone else who can and will.
This is why we have clocks to begin with.
Thus, if we standardized on one time, you would set your alarm clock earlier in the summer in order to arise earlier in the day. In other words, EXACTLY the same thing you do now, except without the inconvenience of changing clocks twice a year.
Aside from the fact that you're again/still advocating for a return to sundials, why would my employer, my customers, and my suppliers be inclined to synchronize to such gradual and constant shifts along with me?
Why aren't you doing it now yourself?
We know what works in education, but we apparently are unable or unwilling to do it. Take a look at some of the tests from a hundred years ago and try your luck at passing them
We're talking about mathematics, more specifically arithmetic, and you're trying to compare standards from before and after transistorization. Arithmetic "education" in 1900 at that level was drills, drills, and more drills, in an effort to develop not creative thinking but speed and accuracy through the use of arcane tricks and shortcuts. But nobody short of a mentat can compete with a 99 four-function calculator in multiplying multi-digit numbers, let alone something as iterative as calculating a square root. It literally takes more time to fiddle with logarithm tables to find an approximation of a square root than it does to find a potentially exact answer with a calculator.
About the only people today who would have practical use for most of what arithmetic education focused on in 1900 are people who are looking to optimize a compiler.
What does it matter if we happen to live somewhere where the clocks say 7pm when the sun rises?
OK, you first. Evangelize the genius simplicity of your plan by communicating all times exclusively in UTC.
Heck we could even schedule things with the sun like people that work for themselves (farmers, construction etc) already can.
Because these industries are completely isolated from all other economic activities and have no need to communicate times outside their domains?
Besides, everyone has been using mechanical clocks for so long that nobody besides astronomers and navigators remembers just how lousy a timekeeper the sun is.
I live near Toronto sunrise in the winter is ~8am and sunset around 5
It's not about the 2145Z sunsets but the 0930Z sunrises that DST is meant to compensate for. Since you note sunlight is so critical, you should realize the benefits of making sure those hours of daylight (when available) are during waking hours.
so you can literally commute to work in the dark and it is dark by the time you live the office seeing the sun for 0 hrs a day isn't a good thing
Another "you first" opportunity: explain to your employer the benefits of having a 2+ hour lunch, particularly when all of your customers and suppliers don't.
We need to get in the habit of planning work enough that we can wait a couple days for a reply
I note you wrote this less than 90 minutes after this story was posted. Why not (again) lead by example and send your missive off to the editors of a weekly or monthly magazine instead?
Except the population distribution in California is biased towards the lower latitudes, and the savings make themselves more apparent in higher latitudes.
Dell staff state that the palm rest will be replaced by Dell at no cost, but only if the unit is still under warranty.
And what if the warranty expired before Dell decided to acknowledge that this defect was, in fact, a defect?
And if it's something in the manufacturing process, then the ultrabook was defective since day one, the entire time that Dell warrants it was "free of defects." So how is refusing to fix it if the clock has run out not breaching Dell's obligations under the warranty?
This is not exactly instilling confidence in Dell's products and their warranties. Sounds more like something HP would do...
And what argument is that, exactly? This all started with my "stopped clock" metaphor, alluding that even the most untrustworthy sources of information can occasionally turn up something factual/useful. That doesn't change the fact that Vladimir Putin's personal fanzine is only marginally more reliable and/or less biased than Newsmax.
And unlike the RT links provided, at least the National Enquirer actually broke the story on John Edwards. Putting Russia Today on equal footing with that is actually giving it the benefit of the doubt.
Or is it a dodge to deflect the criticism until the public forgets and moves on and all can return to status quo ante?
Nah, she's got five long years ahead of her to get around to that.
I think it may be an inconvenient truth to point out that both of them are factually correct...
As is this.
I guess it may finally be time to take Russia Today as seriously as the National Enquirer.
Why, too lazy to look it up yourself?
Because searching Russia Today for the evils of the US government is like searching Fox News for the evils of the Democratic Party.
And a stopped clock is right twice daily.
Seriously, how about some links so we can see how "right" they were?
You don't seem to like the politics of it.
A politician who first tried to get the broad study shut down entirely managed to instead add a qualifier where there was none before (i.e. not "this vs. that" but "all vs. some"), hamstringing the project by basing it on a faulty premise (that "cyclical" change merits such a large impact study) and a loaded question (presupposing that there is no other significant source of climate change impacting the state).
You're right, it is politics and I don't like how it's played out. But more importantly it's also a horrible hypothesis.
Says who? TFA doesn't say that.
It also doesn't not say that. When asked for clarification what exactly "cyclical" meant in the bill, everyone with any authority avoided touching that question with a ten-foot pole, saying nothing more to the scientists beyond "Look at the floor debate," where the word "cyclical" was added by someone who first wanted to eliminate the study outright.
Nobody is saying anything. Everybody is making a point of not saying anything. And even if Han had knocked out those shield generators Lando would at least be detecting something...
There are known solar cycles for example. There are known cycles in the Gulf Stream, there is ENSO, etc., etc...
And if the study finds conclusions that the legislature doesn't like, that simply means that the study didn't focus on the right cycles, or enough cycles, or the right combination of cycles. And the study will just have to keep going until the data suits the "hypothesis."
> the study specifically calls for the researchers to look at 'cyclical' climate change
It's almost as if someone has proposed a hypothesis to be either validated or rejected by examination.
Except that it would have to be either demonstrable or falsifiable to be a hypothesis. There's no point to "study" the existence of something someone just pulled out of their ass to try to make a political point, especially when there is every indication that the person defining something as ephemeral as "cyclical climate change" will simply claim the study didn't add enough epicycles.
and slings it at twice the trucks speed into your lane so it hits your windshield at 90 meters per second
Which would mean both you and the truck area traveling at around 20 m/s, which is highway speed, which means that you and oncoming traffic are separated by a wide median, a retaining wall, or both.
So in your hypothetical scenario, all these measures fail, and you just happen to be in the path of said gravel coming at you with a relative speed of over 300 km/h. Aside from the ridiculously long odds of being in such a scenario, what's your point? That you would somehow have the superhuman reflexes necessary to avoid a projectile coming at you at nearly 1/3 the speed of sound, whereas a computer would not? And that you could and would do this without jeopardizing traffic around you?
Regardless, best practice is still to stay back out of harm's way, rather than to risk even greater jeopardy to the lives and property of yourself and those around you with your sudden, erratic and unpredictable evasive driving.
Think of the case of a gravel truck that has a loose load.
The good driver would apply the brakes, gas and turn the wheel to make sure the gravel passes harmlessly over or under the car.
The better driver would remember that there was still traffic to the sides and behind him and, rather than hoping they all have better reflexes than he does in dealing with his own sudden braking/accelerating/steering, lets the rock chip the windshield, which is later replaced on-site within 30 minutes, with costs covered entirely by his insurer.
The best driver notes the standardized "STAY BACK" sign on the back of the dump truck and actually stays back.
Guess which one the autonomous system does!
So when you're driving today you're in a state of being aware of the situation and are engaged with the surroundings.
In theory. In practice you're fucking with the radio while ogling the bicyclist in spandex.
In the event where you need to take an emergency action,
Re-read the summary. The point isn't that autonomous systems are better able to handle emergency situations, but that they don't get into "emergency situations" to begin with.
Since you're so attentive to your surroundings, how often do you count off seconds to gauge your following distance? If you're answer is anything less than "All the time, constantly," you're less attentive than the autonomous system.
Try it sometime and you'll be passed left and right.
So?
It sounds like autonomous cars are safer because they're not so concerned with "winning."
Cable companies have a hard enough time providing enough bandwidth for more than a couple HD channels, where are they going to find the bandwidth for 4K Ultra HD?
They can start by charging for analog channels commensurately for the bandwidth they use, rather than giving away the analog stuff they modulate in-house for "free" while charging "extra" for digital content they've nothing to but encrypt.
Not going to speak to the sanity of screen size, but with respect to sitting closer: most people would prefer watching television in a living room rather than a closet.