Fall Back, U.S.A!

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 01:33:20 +0530, "mianileng" <>
wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 23:41:56 +0530, "mianileng"
>> <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Larter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You can add me to your list. I ****ing hate DST!
>>>
>>> Now that's an unequivocal statement This thread has been
>>> an
>>> eye opener. The number of posters represents a tiny percentage
>>> of
>>> those who have to live with DST, but still, I'm quite
>>> surprised
>>> at the overwhelming majority of anti-DST posts. It's
>>> gratifying
>>> in a way because it indicates that I have not simply been too
>>> obtuse to see how the benefits of DST outweigh its
>>> disadvantages.
>>>
>> Just to present a view on the other side, I'm in favor of DST.
>> The
>> clock-changing aspect is a inconsequential inconvenience
>> compared to
>> the benefit of an additional hour of daylight recreation. Golf
>> after
>> work, for example.
>
>I expected that there would be those in favor of DST, otherwise
>it would have been abolished long ago. I respect your right to
>have a viewpoint that differs from mine, and I indicated in an
>earlier post that I consider the clock-setting aspect to be a
>relatively minor part of the overall consequences of DST.
>
>However, the rescheduling of working and leisure hours in actual
>time (not clock time) can be done, and *is* done in many
>countries,

As a former owner of a business, there's no way that I would want to
change the business's hours during the year. In the different
countries I've visited, *all* of the business's have traditional hours
and early closing days, but they are based on years of tradition.

>simply by notification. I guess it's something like an
>acquired taste for certain foods. You get to like it after you've
>become accustomed to it, while others never get used to it.
>
>I do feel, however, that if an otherwise intelligent and
>civilized person who's never had to keep time were to be suddenly
>forced to choose between the two systems, he'd go for no DST.

What do you think happened in the US? At some point in the past, the
decision to opt for DST or not to was made. More places did than
didn't. It was local option. The original concept was Benjamin
Franklin's, by the way.

Some here have mentioned trouble because their sleep patterns are
disturbed. How do these people travel to different time zones and
survive?

They would not want to be elected as a congressman from some state on
a different time zone than Washington because of the need to travel
back and forth from DC to their home state.

On the trips I've made to other time zones, my sleep pattern has never
suffered. However, my stomach stays on my own time for several days.
Not so much a problem staying in the US, but trips to Europe and
Africa have resulted in being hungry at odd hours.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On 2 Nov 2009 17:31:10 GMT, ray <> wrote:

>No logic to it at all. It's claimed it saves energy, but a study in
>Indiana (a 'split' state) showed that to be totally bogus.

Not so. The study was done by a team from the University of
California, Santa Barbara. It showed an increase in the use of
electricity. Many people claimed that this demonstrates that the
energy saving claims were bogus based on this.

However, the study didn't take into account the increased use of home
air conditioners. They compared the southwest corner of Indiana (no
dst) with the rest of the state. The area was, except for Evansville,
a rural area. It was taken at a time when new homes were being built
with central air and older houses were adding window units. Air
conditioners, in that era, were not "energy efficient".

It was the study that was bogus. Any "scientific" study that doesn't
take something this obvious into account is without merit.

I grew up in Indiana, and never lived in an air conditioned house.
The first time I lived in an air conditioned house in Indiana is when
I moved back there in 1966.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

tony cooper wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2009 17:31:10 GMT, ray <> wrote:
>
>> No logic to it at all. It's claimed it saves energy, but a study in
>> Indiana (a 'split' state) showed that to be totally bogus.
>
> Not so. The study was done by a team from the University of
> California, Santa Barbara. It showed an increase in the use of
> electricity. Many people claimed that this demonstrates that the
> energy saving claims were bogus based on this.
>
> However, the study didn't take into account the increased use of home
> air conditioners. They compared the southwest corner of Indiana (no
> dst) with the rest of the state. The area was, except for Evansville,
> a rural area. It was taken at a time when new homes were being built
> with central air and older houses were adding window units. Air
> conditioners, in that era, were not "energy efficient".
>
> It was the study that was bogus. Any "scientific" study that doesn't
> take something this obvious into account is without merit.
>
> I grew up in Indiana, and never lived in an air conditioned house.
> The first time I lived in an air conditioned house in Indiana is when
> I moved back there in 1966.

I'd like to see the supporting evidence for the claim that the difference in
energy consumption for two adjacent areas was due to increased use of air
conditioners in _one_ of them.

J. Clarke

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:22:33 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On 2 Nov 2009 17:31:10 GMT, ray <> wrote:
>>
>>> No logic to it at all. It's claimed it saves energy, but a study in
>>> Indiana (a 'split' state) showed that to be totally bogus.
>>
>> Not so. The study was done by a team from the University of
>> California, Santa Barbara. It showed an increase in the use of
>> electricity. Many people claimed that this demonstrates that the
>> energy saving claims were bogus based on this.
>>
>> However, the study didn't take into account the increased use of home
>> air conditioners. They compared the southwest corner of Indiana (no
>> dst) with the rest of the state. The area was, except for Evansville,
>> a rural area. It was taken at a time when new homes were being built
>> with central air and older houses were adding window units. Air
>> conditioners, in that era, were not "energy efficient".
>>
>> It was the study that was bogus. Any "scientific" study that doesn't
>> take something this obvious into account is without merit.
>>
>> I grew up in Indiana, and never lived in an air conditioned house.
>> The first time I lived in an air conditioned house in Indiana is when
>> I moved back there in 1966.
>
>I'd like to see the supporting evidence for the claim that the difference in
>energy consumption for two adjacent areas was due to increased use of air
>conditioners in _one_ of them.

You aren't thinking it out. The figures for pre-change to DST and
post-change were compared. Energy consumption increased post-change
in both areas, but at a lesser rate in the area that didn't change.

The southwest corner of Indiana that did not change is mostly rural
and small towns. The largest population center is Evansville. The
rest of Indiana contains larger cities and areas where the population
was growing. More new homes, more affluent areas, and more
modernization. Hence, more air conditioning units installed.

The study made no attempt to track data in comparable areas. Had the
study been limited to the southwest part of Indiana, and just the
southeast part of Indiana, it would have been a more reliable
indicator.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:43:39 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisky-> wrote:
>
>>
>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>> On 3 Nov 2009 01:05:27 GMT, ray <> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> If it takes a person five minutes to change the necessary clocks, and
>>> if that person would have spent those five minutes watching Jerry
>>> Springer or Oprah if there wasn't a need to change the clocks, then
>>> there is no waste. If the person multi-tasks, as most of us do, while
>>> changing the clocks, there is no wasted time.
>>
>>But almost no one can multi-task that just think theyv can,
>>what a person does is time-slice adn proiratorise even teh eye does that
>>as only about 15% of our total vision is active at any one point the brain
>>captutes the view then the eye scans another area and captures that and
>>the
>>brain joins
>>it and pretends it's one picture, which is how and why magitians can
>>perform
>>their tricks.
>>They use this time-slicing to make sure we don;t 'see' what they are
>>doing.
>>
>
> When I say "multi-task", I don't mean re-setting the clocks and doing
> neurosurgery at the same time. I can watch a football game on TV as I
> reset the clocks and I'm multi-tasking.

That's still not multi-tasking.
And if you are resetiing the closck you usully have to watch at least one
digit change
and while you're watching that you can;t be watching the football.
You might think you're watching it in the same way you might think you're
watching
a magitains every move while they do a card trick on you.

>>> Who here didn't have time to do something important Sunday because
>>> they had to divert that time to changing the clocks?
>>>
>>> Don't all raise your hands at once.
>>
>>Nah most of mine change themselves, the others I do when I have 'free
>>time'
>
> I have no clocks that re-set themselves. I have clock displays in
> electronic devices - computer, telephone, cable box, etc - that
> self-adjust, but my alarm clocks and wall clocks don't.

Pity, I've even brought wall clocks for work that re-set themselves,
they receive a time signal and the hands move forward in large increments
until the time is reached. In theory this also keeps then accurate.

whisky-dave

"J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
news:...
> whisky-dave wrote:
>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:51:04 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Great - now multiply the time it took to do it by 300,000,000 people
>>> in the US. And don't forget the microwave, the oven, the VCR, . . .
>>
>> But you don;t need to change the microwave, or cooker time do you ?
>> Cokoing time doesn't change depending oin time of year.
>> VCR yes if you still have such an antique device my DVD recorder
>> changes itself
>
> Yes, you do have to set the microwave--it has a clock, if you don't reset
> it
> then you're going to look at it one day forgetting that you didn't reset
> it
> and end up missing an important appointment.

No I am not, I hardly look at the clock(s), same with my oven clock.
I tend not to be in the kitchen when I need to know what the time is
for an important appointment. If I'm in the kitchijngn the clock is used to
tell
me how many minutes I'm nuking my food for.
Most peole I know if you ask them the time they'll get their mobile phone
out,
not say hang on I'll just go in to the kitcen.



> The real ****er is the idiots changing the date, so that some things now
> need to be reset _four_ times, twice when official change occurs, and
> twice
> more to unset the change that was programmed into them at the factory
> using
> the old dates. And no, they don't all have USB ports.
>
>>>> It's far less complicated than figuring out if the Customer Service
>>>> phones will be answered by companies in other time zones when I'm
>>>> making calls early in the morning or late afternoon.
>>>
>>> Particularly when you don't know if they're in Arizona, California
>>> or New Mexico (for example) all of whom have different ideas of the
>>> time. As I understand the Chinese get around the whole damned
>>> problem by having one time zone for the entire country.
>>
>> And India splits it in to 30 min times zones.
>

whisky-dave

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:44:11 -0000, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-> wrote:

>> When I say "multi-task", I don't mean re-setting the clocks and doing
>> neurosurgery at the same time. I can watch a football game on TV as I
>> reset the clocks and I'm multi-tasking.
>
>That's still not multi-tasking.
>And if you are resetiing the closck you usully have to watch at least one
>digit change
>and while you're watching that you can;t be watching the football.
>You might think you're watching it in the same way you might think you're
>watching
>a magitains every move while they do a card trick on you.
>
Have you ever watched a football game on TV? Ninety percent of the
time there's nothing happening to watch. It's the plays that happen
in the other ten percent of the time that keep us interested.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:44:11 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisky-> wrote:
>
>>> When I say "multi-task", I don't mean re-setting the clocks and doing
>>> neurosurgery at the same time. I can watch a football game on TV as I
>>> reset the clocks and I'm multi-tasking.
>>
>>That's still not multi-tasking.
>>And if you are resetiing the closck you usully have to watch at least one
>>digit change
>>and while you're watching that you can;t be watching the football.
>>You might think you're watching it in the same way you might think you're
>>watching
>>a magitains every move while they do a card trick on you.
>>
> Have you ever watched a football game on TV?

I try not to,

> Ninety percent of the
> time there's nothing happening to watch. It's the plays that happen
> in the other ten percent of the time that keep us interested.

Rarely keeps me interested, but there are some interesting moments but they
don;t always
include football.

whisky-dave

In message <hdjm80$2lu$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
> writes
>
>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:44:11 -0000, "whisky-dave"
>> <whisky-> wrote:
>>
>>>> When I say "multi-task", I don't mean re-setting the clocks and doing
>>>> neurosurgery at the same time. I can watch a football game on TV as I
>>>> reset the clocks and I'm multi-tasking.
>>>
>>>That's still not multi-tasking.
>>>And if you are resetiing the closck you usully have to watch at least one
>>>digit change
>>>and while you're watching that you can;t be watching the football.
>>>You might think you're watching it in the same way you might think you're
>>>watching
>>>a magitains every move while they do a card trick on you.
>>>
>> Have you ever watched a football game on TV?
>
>I try not to,
>
>> Ninety percent of the
>> time there's nothing happening to watch. It's the plays that happen
>> in the other ten percent of the time that keep us interested.
>
>Rarely keeps me interested, but there are some interesting moments but they
>don;t always
>include football.

I think Tony means American Football... not Football or Aussie Rules
Football or Rugby Football Union which are faster games with fewer
pauses.

However in another photographic forum some one was asking what he should
charge for getting two pictures of a US Football game for the local
paper (a 16 page weekly) . He said he was not intending to stay for the
whole game just long enough to get a couple of good photos......

He went berserk (usual rant and swearing at the rest of us and his worst
photos would be better than our best etc) when it was pointed out you
would have to stay for the whole match as you never knew when the good
action would occur.

For some one taking pictures for a newspaper you want to be at the match
( a small local affair) about an hour before to an hour after. The Hot
dog stand catching fire would be a good photo if not page 1 or 2 for the
paper.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H

tony cooper <> wrote:
> "whisky-dave"
>>> When I say "multi-task", I don't mean re-setting the clocks and doing
>>> neurosurgery at the same time. I can watch a football game on TV as I
>>> reset the clocks and I'm multi-tasking.
>>
>>That's still not multi-tasking.
>>And if you are resetiing the closck you usully have to watch at least one
>>digit change
>>and while you're watching that you can;t be watching the football.
>>You might think you're watching it in the same way you might think you're
>>watching
>>a magitains every move while they do a card trick on you.
>>
>Have you ever watched a football game on TV? Ninety percent of the
>time there's nothing happening to watch. It's the plays that happen
>in the other ten percent of the time that keep us interested.

10%? I don't think so. 2% maybe.



(But then I like baseball)

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer