Should We Eliminate the Time Change?

Should we eliminate the time change from EST to DST?

  • NO, Keep Both EST to DST

    Votes: 4 10.8%
  • Yes, Stay On DST Year Round

    Votes: 17 45.9%
  • Yes, Stay On EST Year Round

    Votes: 16 43.2%

  • Total voters
    37
For many if not all of us, it’s been this way since before we were born. Standard time seems to be a better balance of the day’s daylight hours. Most people no longer have to tend their Victory Gardens after work, but it’s nice that the sun doesn’t rise too early and we get the long evening during the summer.

I like it just the way it is. It’s safer for kids going to school. For retired folks, we can choose the hours that we want to enjoy the light. We will not gain any sunlight or darkness regardless of legislation.

Doesn’t Marco have more important things to deal with?
 
What will we have to blame when we are late, if we eliminate the change?
It happened to me at least once. Me and my boss were waiting at our Oslo office for two British guys on one Monday but the guys didn't show up. The comms were not that easy as they are today so we could not just WhatsApp our guests to find out. Ya, they appeared an hour later :)
 
Did you know Hawaii doesn't participate in DST. Hawaii opted out of the Uniform Time Act's provision in 1967. Hawaii currently observes (HST) Hawaii Standard Time. No need to change clock twice a year. Just saying.
It is easy when you live on islands far away from the mainland. Also, you are closer to the Equator. (Did you know the two civilized countries located on the Equator had 12 hours -- and some minutes -- of daylight all year long?)
 
Except for the Navajo reservation in AZ which does observe DST.

I find Arizona's no DST policy to be more confusing than not in my travels around the southwest. I often fly into Phoenix and drive to Paige AZ. In the summer months, you actually pass through 5 time changes on the trip as you pass through portions of the Navajo reservation! Paige, which is surrounded by the Navajo Nation, doesn't observe DST. It's also very close to the Utah border where DST is observed. Driving around the Paige area, I'm never really sure what time it is.

Adopting a standard, whether it's EST or DST, would eliminate all this confusion.
Are you talking about a mandatory standard that Arizona couldn't opt out of? I wonder how that would go over.

And someone's already mentioned this, but EST is Eastern Standard Time, a geo-specific term, and DST is Daylight Savings Time, which is non-geo-specific. Two different things. What they have in Arizona, outside the Navajo Reservation, is MST. Inside the Reservation is MDT, starting last Sunday. I'm sure you know all that, and, yeah, I get what you mean, but you aren't helping....

TT
 
I'd like to see us just be done with it and use UTC everywhere. No summer time, no time zones.
 
What o'clock it is is ultimately arbitrary. Why not have 10 or 100 hours in a day, if we want to use the decimal system? Then why not 100 seconds in a minute and 100 minutes in an hour? Why seconds, minutes, and hours anyway? If we keep hours, we could use letters instead of numbers. Ore even name them like hurricanes: Alice, Bob, Carrie, etc.

Switching from standard to daylight and back every year is only slightly annoying to me. I kind of like the changes.

Whatever we call the hours "noon" is going to happen whenever the sun hits it's peak. Daylingt or Standard, it's rarely at 12 anywhere.

TT
 
It is easy when you live on islands far away from the mainland. Also, you are closer to the Equator. (Did you know the two civilized countries located on the Equator had 12 hours -- and some minutes -- of daylight all year long?)
Sort of, they say night falls quick in the tropics.
 
What o'clock it is is ultimately arbitrary. Why not have 10 or 100 hours in a day, if we want to use the decimal system? Then why not 100 seconds in a minute and 100 minutes in an hour? Why seconds, minutes, and hours anyway? If we keep hours, we could use letters instead of numbers. Ore even name them like hurricanes: Alice, Bob, Carrie, etc.

Switching from standard to daylight and back every year is only slightly annoying to me. I kind of like the changes.

Whatever we call the hours "noon" is going to happen whenever the sun hits it's peak. Daylingt or Standard, it's rarely at 12 anywhere.

TT
I am not going to swear to it, but it seems I got the impression the measure somehow sort of syncs with lartitude or geographical measure, crap like that confuses me to no end,its just like windows, when I get pretty close to where I can use it they bring out another version,I wish I still had XP and Media player 10, I could do most anything I wanted with those two.
 
Good for a space station for sure :) People would not accept it if they had to go to work at some weird time, I think :)
Besides, it is a lot of fun to watch my watch :) on the time zone change. All these arms rotating to be set at the new time! (The watch is controlled by smartphone).
Cannot wait for the last weekend of March to see it happen!

7:02 Central European Time (winter time) here
23:02 Seattle time
6:02 British Winter Time
16:02 Brisbane time
20:02 Hawaii time (that's why Rome is online when I am online) :D
6:02 UTC now.
 
Good for a space station for sure :) People would not accept it if they had to go to work at some weird time, I think :)
Why would it be weird? Just move business hours to what is appropriate for the location. So if I get up at 1400 instead of 0600 and go to bed at 0600 instead of 2200 what is the problem? Those hours might be "weird" but not so weird as to be unheard of even in local time.

The only problem I can see, and it would be minor in practice, is having the calendar date change in the middle of the "day".
 
Just move business hours to what is appropriate for the location. So if I get up at 1400 instead of 0600 and go to bed at 0600 instead of 2200 what is the problem?
This is exactly the agenda being pushed by the blackout curtain lobby and the INSWU (International Night-Shift Workers' Union), whose members would prefer night shifts during daylight hours in certain parts of the world.
 
It's not an island, islet maybe.
LOL, you really don't want to take the accepted definition of an atoll, do you? An island is a piece of land surrounded by water. It doesn't matter how small that island is, is still fits the definition of an island. Note in the definition of an atoll below that island and chain of islands formed of coral is in the definition. I didn't go into detail about the exact island I was on since Majuro is generally considered the whole chain of islands formed of coral but generally referred to as the part starting at the Laura end going all the way to the Rita end and was referred to as the island of Majuro, since the outlying islands on the opposite side of the lagoon are not connected together the way the several islands from Laura to Rita are connected.
1679546629529.png

Why were you there anyway?
My parents were missionaries there. When we first moved there in 1968, I remember my dad frequently having to stop and move driftwood off the road on the causeways between the smaller islands. When it was high tide, especially if there were high waves, we had to wait for a gap in the waves then floor it to go through those places to avoid getting hit by an ocean wave. It would often take over 2 hours to go the 28 miles from one end to the other.

In any case, I would like to stay on DT year-round since I preferr the "extra" daylight at the end of my day, rather than at the start of the day, though I'd be fine with staying with ST as my second choice.
 
Majuro is an atoll, but did you look up the definition of an atoll? An atoll is a type of island. My statement is still correct.
True, like "Antlers" and "Horns". Horns are made of keratin, while antlers are bony material, for the most part Horns are never shed( except for "Pronghorns) while both are technically "horns", my schooling sez Coral "Atolls" have a biologic origin while most islands are basically mountain tops.
 
...my schooling sez Coral "Atolls" have a biologic origin while most islands are basically mountain tops.
Atolls are both of those things. The geobiological dynamic involved is absolutely amazing.

Atolls start out as coral reefs around the above-water summits of huge seafloor volcanos — often in open ocean with otherwise little sea life, as in the tropical Central Pacific. During the active volcanic phase and long after, seawater circulating through the porous volcanic rock picks up heat and mineral nutrients that feed the growing reef and ultimately all the marine life it attracts and depends on. The volcano becomes a bustling oasis in an ocean desert.

Meanwhile, the growing volcano slowly subsides under its own weight, and the well-fed fringing coral reef — a synbiosis between coral polyps and photosynthetic algae — grows upward toward the sunlight the algae require.

Once the volcanic activity ceases, the above-water summit eventually erodes/subsides away. But the subsidence, hydrothermal circulation, and upward reef growth continue for many thousands to millions of years. Eventual result: A coral atoll with the volcanic mountain at its base now completely out of sight from the air.

Zoom in on the many Central Pacific island chains (all volcanic) with Google Earth, and you'll see all phases of this dynamic. The Society Islands are a good place to start. The transition from Tahiti (young, tall dormant volcanic mountaintop, young reef) westward to older Moorea (eroding inactive mountain, well-developed fringing reef and lagoon) and finally to much older Bora Bora (little subaerial mountain left, atoll in the making) is textbook.
 
Last edited:
Back