quote:

Originally posted by yanici:
Another vote for standard time.

And another. I hate it being light for so late at night.

And the farmers are full of shit. Another hour of daylight at the end of the day isn't going to make any difference vs. an hour at the beginning of the day.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:
I may have mentioned this in an earlier discussion about DST, but...

I've put a few industrial controllers in place whose firmware was already programmed for DST rules for the next 20 years or so. The ones I installed have probably all been decommissioned by now, but they're a widely used product. A change in DST rules will likely keep some engineers and programmers busy for a good while, sorting out problems in time/date-based machines and systems already in service.

I'm sure the airline and railroad companies are very interested in this debate, too.

Shades of all those Y2k server patches back in '99.

I do agree it would be nice to do away with DST.

Just saw a story that reminded me that we did have DST for a bit in the 70's during the oil crisis.

People HATED it. They were originally going to run it for two years and ended it early.

In addition, moving to permanent Standard time would move the hottest part of the day earlier in the day - might make evenings a bit more palatable.

Seems they tried it before in the 70’s and it didn’t go to well.

My understanding is the current bill wouldn’t mandate it, just give states the option. I imagine Arizona and Hawaii would continue to opt out.


I think doing away with saving time and sticking to standard year round would be the better way to go

quote:

Originally posted by SigSAC:
They were originally going to run it for two years and ended it early.

I’m halfway thinking that if this passes, we’ll go through the whole event again in a couple of years to undo it.
Goodness knows, this is the critical issue we need government spending time (and our money) on.

So, stopping fighting about the time change will lead to another fight about stopping the stop of the time change. Or something like that.

I reckon I am in a minority (of course being 82 yrs old already guarantees that!) but I kinda like the system as is. It gives me daylight in the summer evenings and daylight in the winter mornings and still keeps me on schedule with most everybody else.

Yes, I know it is an irritation for lots of folks, but my granddaddy taught me a long time ago that to survive this world with your sanity intact, a fella needs to learn the difference between irritations, aggravations, problems, crises, and disasters. He said to deal with all five, you must be able to identify before you overreact or underreact. I am with him in the time situation.

Wake me up when this is decided.
It's not going to change my life.

This minimalist legislation is about all Congress can accomplish. The significant problems the US has are beyond the ability of the current Ds and Rs in Washington.

DOA in the Senate

https://x.com/TheCalvinCooli1/.../2077226067987701860

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by yanici:
Another vote for standard time.

And another. I hate it being light for so late at night.

And the farmers are full of shit. Another hour of daylight at the end of the day isn't going to make any difference vs. an hour at the beginning of the day.

Actually there is a differance. Many crops cannot be harvested until the dew has completely dried in the morning. This neans farmers will need to start later and finish later with respect to the rest of the country.

Farmers make up less than 2% of the population. Trust me, they're not the ones the politicians are trying to please. It's people like me who have regular office hours who enjoy an extra hour of sunlight after work.

This is a good idea.

People get more done after work in terms of yardwork, relaxing outside, shopping or sports than they could possibly do under standard time. Backloading extra sunlight is desirable.

quote:

Originally posted by Cassandra:
Actually there is a differance. Many crops cannot be harvested until the dew has completely dried in the morning.

We're talking an hour. Sixty minutes makes little to no difference with regard to dew evaporation.

Also, standard time is significantly better for the body physiologically as nearly every study done on it shows.

I’ve always wanted DST to be permanent. Who wants it to be dark at 4:30om in the winter? Winter is depressing enough.

Ahh...a reminder of the odd/even gas rationing days. Permanent DST didn't work then. Doubt it'll work now.

Please, please, please let this pass! I get up for work at 4:30am, so it's dark in the morning either way. But in the winter when we're off DST, it's also dark when I get home. Have to walk the dog in the dark, mow in the dark (yeah, some years we're still doing that in November), rake leaves in the dark, plow snow in the dark, etc. An extra hour of light in the evening would make a big difference for at least most of the winter.

And I don't know why retired people are opposed to this. You don't have to work, so you get to take full advantage of the daylight whenever it happens. Also, this way there'd be no hour disruption to sleeping patterns of children and pets twice a year.

Indiana used to be like Arizona...no time change...until the early 2000s Gov Mitch Daniels decided that we needed to confirm with our neighbors for economic reasons. That was stupid. But if we get rid of the time change nationally, then we'll be back to having that benefit with no economic downside to business that crosses state lines.

I'm okay with just picking one and sticking to it. I lived most of my life in places that do not switch time back and forth, and things seemed to work just fine. I don't think any major Asian countries observe daylight savings time, except for a couple in the Middle East.

quote:

DOA in the Senate

These senators might kill permanent daylight saving time. Here's why.
At least 13 senators have previously voted against the Sunshine Protection Act or voiced their opposition to it.

Many Americans rejoiced on Tuesday after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would make daylight saving time permanent nationwide and end the biannual chore of changing the clocks to "spring forward" and "fall back." It now heads to the Senate, where its future looks dim.

After the lopsided 308-117 vote, Republican Rep. Gus Bilirakis of Florida dismissed America's "twice-yearly clock change" as "a relic of the past that no longer reflects the way Americans live, work and conduct business in the 21st century."

Or, as one of the Sunshine Protection Act's most prominent supporters, President Trump, wrote on social media in May, "this is an easy one!"

It means "a longer, brighter Day," Trump enthused. "And who can be against that?"

The answer, it turns out, may be enough senators to prevent the bill from becoming law.

In a floor speech last year, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas — a Republican who usually aligns with Trump — said that "advocates for permanent daylight saving time try to put, well, a sunny face on this bill," claiming it "would mean 'more daylight hours' and 'more smiles.'"

But the truth, Cotton continued, would be much darker (pun intended). Daylight saving time doesn't actually create more daylight, of course. It simply adjusts the clocks so an hour of daylight that would normally occur in the early morning instead occurs in the evening.

"By moving the clock back an hour in winter, permanent daylight saving time would push winter sunrises to an absurdly late hour, depriving Americans of morning sunshine that is essential for our safety and well-being," Cotton argued.

On Tuesday, Semafor reported that Cotton "still opposes the permanent daylight saving time bill" and that he "is not alone." The outlet then listed a dozen other senators — Republicans and Democrats — who serve on the Senate Commerce Committee and previously voted against making daylight saving time permanent:

John Thune of South Dakota

Roger Wicker of Mississippi

Deb Fischer of Nebraska

Jerry Moran of Kansas

Dan Sullivan of Alaska

Ted Budd of North Carolina

Tim Sheehy of Montana

Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

Gary Peters of Michigan

Tammy Duckworth of Illinois

Jacky Rosen of Nevada

Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware

It's unclear when the Sunshine Protection Act will come up for a vote in the Senate. It's also unclear whether all of these senators would still oppose it. But if they did, that would be enough to kill the bill — and with it, Trump's dream of "a longer, brighter Day," which 56% of Americans say they share.

So what's the objection here?

It's the geography, stupid. Permanent daylight saving time would lock the clocks in "spring forward" mode, shifting the entire country toward more daylight in the evening and less in the morning.

For coastal and Southern states, the benefits of brighter evenings tend to outweigh the costs of darker mornings, even in the winter — which helps explain why the Sunshine Protection Act has drawn much of its support from these regions. Where Trump lives in West Palm Beach, Fla., for example, the shortest day of the year would see the sun rise at about 8:04 am and set around 6:32 pm. That's normal-ish enough.

But elsewhere, the cost-benefit calculus is different.

Latitude is half of the equation. Northern states already have shorter winter days than Southern states, so moving sunrise back an hour would keep residents in the dark well after the start of school and work.

Then longitude factors in as well. Time zones are wide, so if you live on the far eastern edge of one of them (like Boston), the sun rises relatively early. But if you live on the far western edge of the same time zone (like Detroit), the sun rises nearly an hour later.

The result, under permanent daylight saving time, would be winter sunrises approaching 9:00 a.m. the farther north you go, and start to creep past 9:30 a.m. toward the northwestern corners of each U.S. time zone. In parts of Alaska, the sun wouldn't rise until 11:15 am.

Cotton argued last year that this "would be especially harmful for schoolchildren and working Americans."

"Kids would either walk to school in the pitch black or schools would have to push back start times," he claimed. "Meanwhile, construction workers, farmers, and others who rise before the sun or who need the sun to work … might go three, four or even five hours in the morning without seeing the sun, which would hurt their quality of life and, potentially, their safety in the workplace."

The senators who previously opposed the Sunshine Protection Act in committee disproportionately hail from states where the sun would rise after 8:30 a.m. in the winter under permanent daylight saving time — so they likely share at least some of Cotton's concerns.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pol...s-why-201943061.html

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
DOA in the Senate

Once again, Big Gov has wasted a lot of time and effort on this -- a relatively minor issue, IMO -- instead of working on actual problems. Grr.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
<snip>
Or, as one of the Sunshine Protection Act's most prominent supporters, President Trump, wrote on social media in May, "this is an easy one!"

It means "a longer, brighter Day," Trump enthused. "And who can be against that?"
</snip>

And right there is the real reason for the refusal to support it. Trump likes it, and anything that Trump wants MUST be opposed. If anybody else was in the white house, from either party, would all these senators still be opposing the bill? I doubt it.

I sound like I support the bill, but really I don't. I fall in the "Drop DST completely and go to all STD time" camp. I'd prefer to see this one die and a "Kill DST" bill be forthcoming. I'm just so damn sick and tired of all these otherwise rational R's opposing Trump on every little thing, just because it's Trump in the WH and not one of their private club members.