Saving what again?
May. 21st, 2007 07:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
As it turns out, this year's change in the implementation of daylight "savings" ended up not saving anything, and actually just causing extra annoyance. The US Congress seems completely taken by surprise by the fact that changing the time does not magically create more sunlight. That extra hour in the evening, scientists and the Department of Energy reminds them, is actually offset by an hour less in the morning! Imagine that!
Seems like there is not even a measurable energy savings. If anything, the biggest impact of the daylight savings change is that a bunch of computerized gadgets needed to be updated, and people with their Blackberry and Palm not being sure if the time was adjusted (some changed the time manually, only to have it change by another at the old switch-over date, for example).
Down with daylight savings! End the madness!
Seems like there is not even a measurable energy savings. If anything, the biggest impact of the daylight savings change is that a bunch of computerized gadgets needed to be updated, and people with their Blackberry and Palm not being sure if the time was adjusted (some changed the time manually, only to have it change by another at the old switch-over date, for example).
Down with daylight savings! End the madness!
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 05:55 am (UTC)stare at my icon for a bit, it will all be better :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 10:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 02:18 pm (UTC)Back in the sixties or seventies, GB went on year round daylight savings, with double daylight savings in summer. This was so they would be at the same time as most of Western Europe. The result and reason they quit doing it: more school children were getting killed by traffic on the way to school in the dark.
I wonder if this was even considered.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 02:31 pm (UTC)As a kid, I remember plenty of time in the year where my walking back home was at dawn or dusk, or even outright in the dark, so to me, it just seems like there's going to be some walking in the dark to do, it's going to have to be dealt with.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 04:03 pm (UTC)I wasn't really trying to discuss the general rate of accidents from dst. I was pointing out that dst in winter (the double dst that they had in GB) was a risk to children. Most north american children don't end up walking home at dusk, so making walk to school when it is darker seems likely to increase the risk.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 06:48 pm (UTC)Most of the point was to save energy, and it's not even doing that. They should just bloody leave it alone.
I also find it rather amusing that one of the early seed for the idea was a satirical letter published by Benjamin Franklin while he was an envoy in France, proposing that Parisians economized candles by getting up earlier to catch the morning light. But this was more about cutting down on the partying at night, and the whole "early risers are healthy and wealthy" thing. Incidentally, he wasn't proposing to change the time (I guess he knew Parisians weren't even looking at the clock!), but ringing church bells, firing cannons in the morning and other such things.
Some benefit
Date: 2007-05-21 08:41 pm (UTC)The people who struggled most are the ones using poorly-designed software. In particular, Windows stores file timestamps and keeps the RTC in local time? WTF?
Re: Some benefit
Date: 2007-05-21 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-21 11:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-22 05:18 am (UTC)Most of the world's population doesn't follow DST, already, so more of the work is already done! ;-)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-22 07:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-23 09:09 pm (UTC)NOTE: I am not being serious. I had to fix recurring events in Google Calendar for the new timezones. It sucked.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 05:45 am (UTC)