h a l f b a k e r yLike you could do any better.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
An ordinary clock, that speeds up by 1/48th of a second when a switch is pushed, and continues to run at this slightly quickened pace until it gains an hour. Thus, a painful surrender of a Daylight Savings Hour would seamlessly take place throught the course of 48 hours. If you don't have the entire
weekend to spend at home, set the clock to run 1/24th or 1/12th of a second fast. The process could even be implemented in Official Clocks - imagine a week or month-long transition that would hurt no one (look up the traffic fatality increases associated with DST.)
[link]
|
| |
Or we could do away with the outdated and pointless notion of 'saving' something that can't be saved... |
|
| |
How unlike you, dsm... I would have thought you would
enjoy the increased traffic fatalities :) |
|
| |
As for the idea, I would think 1/48th of a second would be
the maximum amount of time gain to do any good (maybe
1/24th), because otherwise the time change is still
compressed into one sleep/wake cycle, and you will still
most likely lose out on an hour of sleep, right? |
|
| |
"High Noon" would always be just that, eh PS? That sounds much better to me. I'd be sleeping in during the winter, and getting up early in the summer, just the way it would feel natural to do. but what about the poor folks in the extreme upper and lower latitudes? |
|
| |
PotatoStew's [PeterSealy's, actually, oops!] idea was baked by the Romans, IIRC. There were ten hours in the day, from sunup to sundown. In the winter, hours were shorter. |
|
| |
I don't know how they kept time at night.| — | wiml,
Apr 05 2001, last modified Apr 06 2001 |
|
|
| |
Wait, wiml ... I had no idea. I think you mean the other
PS... |
|
| |