It's hard to imagine a subject on which there are more ill-informed opinions amongst supposedly intelligent people than Daylight Savings Time. Just read the arguments for and against here for confirmation. In the summer months sunrise is earlier and sunset is later so there is more light at both ends of the day. Daylight Savings [in its "Spring Forward/Fall Back" form] artificially shifts an hour of light from the morning to the evening. Whether this is a good idea or not is pretty much down to lifestyle choices. There's no underlying logic to it. Most people (including myself) wake up earlier in the summer. DST essentially removes the option for us to use those extra hours of daylight constructively by pretending it's an hour later than it is so we have to go to work instead.

But why do you have to steal an hour of the morning's warmth and light to achieve this?

Have you been on the Bucky? BST means there's an hour less daylight in the mornings and an hour more in the evenings for the summer months. You have the benefits completely back to front. Perhaps you're thinking BST is the norm and putting the clocks back is the benefit. If you want more light in the mornings then you should be shifting to GMT-1 in the winter and shifting to GMT+1 in the summer. Although this would make sense the two hour shift would not be popular.

It's not advantageous to me in the slightest if it gets dark at, say, 10 pm as opposed to 9 pm in the summer. Why would it be?

They're not anticipating a post-Apocalyptic "Mad Max" landscape, just one where banks collapse and/or the government steals their savings. This has occurred in many countries within living memory to a greater or lesser degree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/nyregion/fbi-tapes-give-glimpse-into-world-of-high-stakes-gambling.html

Nice. Bizarre racist abuse as you can't counter my arguments. Fyi, I and my ancestors have been in Britain since time immemorial.

Allowing multiple TVs per household per license does not contradict my statement that it's a tax on hardware. My objection - as you know perfectly well - is the lack of any reasonable mechanism for opting out of watching BBC channels and not having to buy a license.

The BBC's funding mechanism is so utterly indefensible that it almost renders any discussion of quality moot. A tax on hardware which goes exclusively to one content provider??? This is just ridiculous. Of course it manages to produce the occasional high quality programme but overall the standard is mediocre and falling. Also senior management are drawn from a very small soi-disant intellectual liberal elite.

"Another partial boon to FOSS communities is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA)." I guess when you're in jail for watching your DVD on a Linux box on the grounds you subverted the DRM you'll have that to console you.

Games? What do games have to do with it? How can these idiots be so muddled in their thinking? If disasters create a need for this sort of labour then build a platform and let people who want to help download a a client and get assigned some chunk to work on. The server aggregates results and assigns the chunks. Spread the word via social media when there's an urgent need. Job done. I don't play computer games at all these days but I'd be happy to tag images for an hour if it would help responders to a disaster. This utterly mistaken idea that this concept needs to be coupled with gaming can only have come from a sort of 'cargo cult' view on computing. Oh, look at all these geeks playing computer games all day, we need to harvest them for our tasks, so lets embed them in the games...

If you build a car then it's not the case that anyone else can perfectly replicate that car and distribute it globally at effectively zero cost. Therefore your analogy is invalid.

I'd say the astronomical (quantum mechanical?) amount of computing power required is more indicative of a lack of progress or any real theoretical ideas. The rapid progress in theoretical physics of the 20th century happened via theoretical breakthroughs and experimentation not computing.

Hehe you meant 'most' for minorities. Never mind. Should it be the government's job to extract £145/year from everyone with a TV so that it can be given to an extremely unrepresentative group to make programmes of interest to minorities? You obviously think it is, but most people would disagree.

See my answer to AC for more details but the BBC news has repeatedly been shown to be biased. They themselves have acknowledged that to some extent. The quality of other programmes is generally very poor. It would be more accurate to say I want to abolish the license fee rather than shut down the BBC. The alternative is for anyone who wants to try and run a commercial channel. With digital technology it's probably never been more achievable.