There is an argument for making it permanent in that daylight savings is in effect most of the year. There is also an argument for the opposite, which is that Arizona and Hawaii do not observe Daylight Saving Time (DST). The US territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and the US Virgin Islands also do not observe DST. So you'd be opting into permanently being an hour off from these regions if they are normally the same timezone. It's messy imo.
They did it to reduce energy consumption and it didn't work. And all the people in their 9 - 5 jobs had to go to work in the cold and dark. Sucked.
We're talking about doing it for health and comfort. And few of us work strict 9 - 5 schedules any more; our hours are more flexible and technology makes it easy for employers to adjust schedules if that's what their employees want, without needing an overarching government mandate.
Pretty sure this is not the case - as witness rush hours that still exist, financial market trading hours, and pretty much any expectation of business hours that reflect the ~8-~5 schedule still being firmly entrenched for the majority.
but the proof will be in the pudding - either this doesn't pass, or it does pass and gets repealed, or it doesn't get repealed. I personally don't care that much, I love the fall back but detest the spring forward so it
You've read that wrong. That was making DST year-round instead of only in the Summer. We're talking about getting rid of DST and leave the clocks on the normal time year round.
I might not have cared when I was younger, but as the years go by, the "spring forward" change is more and more disruptive and for a longer span of time.
I've been able to mitigate it somewhat by setting my alarm incrementally earlier in the weeks prior to make the adjustment gradual, but it is still quite stressful and irritating, and the reasoning behind it is outdated and pointless (in my book).
Whether by making daylight savings time permanent or by abolishing it, America could improve the economy and automation, ultimately saving lives by reducing prices. Also many life-years per year due to old people not suffering the shock of having to get up and go to bed at different times and (since no one uses the sun to know when to rise anymore) steadier metabolic cues. But a much smaller number of life-years will be lost when children get hit by cars walking in the dark. The balance of human thriving wi
1. Because, as others have pointed out, the question is stated stupidly. Most people favor ending standard time, and making so-called daylight saving time permanent.
2. On the chance the question is actually stated as intended, I think we should keep it, just so we still have something to regularly bitch about on slashdot twice yearly.
Having worked as a programmer for call centers. Dealing with time zone changes is always hard coded and is a pain in the ass to change.
I'd say no because there's (1) no tangible benefit to the population as a whole to doing it/and/ (2) There's a great deal of cost associated with changing systems dependent on tracking time zone changes.
Not everything needs to fall victim to the 'efficiency' blade.
Yes, and everybody else should too (Score:2)
The EU would already have done it, were its legal bodies not that lethargic.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but I'm still annoyed with the missing options. "Hell, yes" and perhaps "Whatever time Cowboy Neal says!"
As a Canadian, yes! (Score:2)
Missing option... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not simply get up earlier? That seems simpler than asking countless people and organisations to deal with a confusing time shift.
Re: (Score:2)
What's "confusing" about it?
You go to bed. You wake up. Life goes on.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto, but then other locations would complain. :(
Re: (Score:1)
There is an argument for making it permanent in that daylight savings is in effect most of the year. There is also an argument for the opposite, which is that Arizona and Hawaii do not observe Daylight Saving Time (DST). The US territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and the US Virgin Islands also do not observe DST. So you'd be opting into permanently being an hour off from these regions if they are normally the same timezone. It's messy imo.
Not to mention people don't actu
We did it before, and it was disliked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did it to reduce energy consumption and it didn't work. And all the people in their 9 - 5 jobs had to go to work in the cold and dark. Sucked.
We're talking about doing it for health and comfort. And few of us work strict 9 - 5 schedules any more; our hours are more flexible and technology makes it easy for employers to adjust schedules if that's what their employees want, without needing an overarching government mandate.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure this is not the case - as witness rush hours that still exist, financial market trading hours, and pretty much any expectation of business hours that reflect the ~8-~5 schedule still being firmly entrenched for the majority.
but the proof will be in the pudding - either this doesn't pass, or it does pass and gets repealed, or it doesn't get repealed. I personally don't care that much, I love the fall back but detest the spring forward so it
Re: We did it before, and it was disliked (Score:2)
Not just yes (Score:1)
But hell yes
I might not have cared when I was younger, but as the years go by, the "spring forward" change is more and more disruptive and for a longer span of time.
I've been able to mitigate it somewhat by setting my alarm incrementally earlier in the weeks prior to make the adjustment gradual, but it is still quite stressful and irritating, and the reasoning behind it is outdated and pointless (in my book).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing you don't live in a latitude where it makes a huge difference.
The named victim (Score:1)
Jezz, not this shit again... (Score:2)
a) What's the problem in having two extra interesting days per year?
b) Everybody who lives in non-affected latitudes doesn't even get an opinion. There's latitudes where it makes a HUGE difference.
No (Score:2)
1. Because, as others have pointed out, the question is stated stupidly. Most people favor ending standard time, and making so-called daylight saving time permanent.
2. On the chance the question is actually stated as intended, I think we should keep it, just so we still have something to regularly bitch about on slashdot twice yearly.
No! (Score:1)
YES (Score:1)