Re: OT: Time zone question

I don't disagree.  So set everyone's clocks forward to "DST" and just
leave them there year-round.  I couldn't care less how close clock
time is to solar time, which even at their closest match is "not that
close" here.  I just think the semiannual clock-change is far more
trouble than it's worth.  Heck, based on Indiana's consumption last
year, DST *costs* energy rather than saving it.

But this thread is becoming rapidly coronal, with a threat of
cruciform fervor, so perhaps it's best dropped.  I should have known
better than to ask a "why" question where politics was involved in the
answer anyway. :)



On 5/28/08, Peter Collier <petecollier@...> wrote:
> --- "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> wrote:
>
>> In Atlanta we're already far enough West that we
>> should be in the
>> Central time zone instead of the Eastern one we've
>> been legislated
>> into.  So that's an hour difference to start with.
>> Tack on Daylight
>> Saving Time and you're looking at sunset in the
>> height of summer after
>> 9PM...
>>
>
> I'm only 2 deg West of my time zone's meridian. Sunset
> at my home on 21 June will be at 2134 - but to me
> that's a bonus! Sit in the garden, nice and warm, sun
> going down, cold beer, birds singing, smell of mown
> grass.... lovely.
>
> Get rid of DST, and I have the extra hour of daylight
> in the morning - i.e. on 21.06 the sun would rise at
> 0346, so it would start to get light by 3AM.  What
> possible use is that to anybody!?
>
> It strikes me, that since the majority of the
> population are 'up and about' for maybe 5/6 hours
> before noon, but 10/12 hours after it, it makes sense
> to have your civil time set such that the balance of
> daylight is post noon.
>
>
> P.
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>